↓ Skip to main content

Effects of long-term use of macrolides in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of long-term use of macrolides in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0872-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-Chao Fan, Hai-Wen Lu, Ping Wei, Xiao-Bin Ji, Shuo Liang, Jin-Fu Xu

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefits and safety of the long-term use of macrolides in patients with non-cystic fibrosis (non-CF) bronchiectasis. Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched from inception up to March 2014. The primary outcome was the improvement of exacerbations of bronchiectasis. Secondary endpoints included changes of microbiology, lung function, quality of life, sputum volume, adverse events and macrolide resistance. The literature search yielded 139 studies, ten of which containing 601 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Macrolides showed a statistically-significant improvement in reducing acute exacerbations per patient during follow-up treatment (RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.64, P < 0.001), increasing the number of patients free from exacerbations (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.85, 4.26, P < 0.001), and prolonging time to a first exacerbation (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.53, P < 0.001). Macrolides maintenance treatment was superior to control with respect to attenuating FEV1 decline (p = 0.02), improving sputum volume (p = 0.009) and SGRQ total scores (p = 0.02), but showed a higher risk of adverse events, especially diarrhea (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.06, 13.98, P = 0.0006). Eradication of pathogens was improved in the macrolide group (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.91, 3.41, P = 0.09), while pathogen resistance caused by macrolides dramatically increased (OR = 16.83, 95% CI: 7.26, 38.99, P < 0.001). The new appearance of a microbiologic profile or participant withdrawal due to adverse events showed no significant differences between the two groups. In patients with non-CF bronchiectasis, macrolide maintenance treatment can effectively reduce frequency of exacerbations, attenuate lung function decline, decrease sputum volume, improve quality of life, but may be accompanied with increased adverse events (especially diarrhea) and pathogen resistance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 17 30%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Unspecified 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,311,191
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#304
of 7,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,398
of 263,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.