↓ Skip to main content

Short‐course versus long‐course intravenous therapy with the same antibiotic for severe community‐acquired pneumonia in children aged two months to 59 months

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Short‐course versus long‐course intravenous therapy with the same antibiotic for severe community‐acquired pneumonia in children aged two months to 59 months
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008032.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lassi, Zohra S, Imdad, Aamer, Bhutta, Zulfiqar A

Abstract

Pneumonia remains the single leading cause of childhood mortality, causing an estimated 1.3 million childhood deaths each year in children under the age of five years. The greater burden of disease occurs in low-income countries, where medical resources and hospital-based management are poor. The World Health Organization (WHO) current evidence summaries recommend intravenous antibiotics for five days as first-line treatment for severe pneumonia. Although there is controversy around the specificity of clinical features in the diagnosis of pneumonia, the criteria for the diagnosis of severe pneumonia are better defined and widely used to triage children for referral and second-line therapy.Approximately 120 million new cases of pneumonia occur globally each year in children under five years of age, of which 14 million progress to severe episodes. Hospitalisation for severe pneumonia in children places a significant burden on both patients and their families, including substantial expense, loss of routine and decrease in quality of life. By reducing the duration of treatment in the hospital, this burden could potentially be lessened and possibly lead to better treatment compliance. To evaluate the efficacy of short-course (two to three days) versus long-course (five days) intravenous therapy with the same antibiotic for severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children aged two months to 59 months. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 4, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of short-course (two to three days) versus long-course (five days) intravenous antibiotic therapy for severe pneumonia in children aged two months to 59 months. We excluded children with any other debilitating disease, including those infected with HIV and we excluded children with signs and symptoms of very severe pneumonia (i.e. unable to drink or breast feed, vomiting, lethargic, unconscious, convulsing, central cyanosis, severe respiratory distress or clinically severe malnutrition). We also excluded children who had developed pneumonia during their hospital stay (i.e. with nosocomial infection). There was no restriction on the type of antibiotic used, the dose or the frequency of dosing. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We identified 2352 studies, however none fulfilled our pre-defined inclusion criteria. We did not identify any RCTs comparing a short course (two to three days) of intravenous antibiotics compared to a long course (five days) for severe pneumonia in children aged two to 59 months.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Psychology 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,385,075
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,869
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,408
of 236,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 236,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.