↓ Skip to main content

Continuous versus intermittent antibiotics for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
44 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Continuous versus intermittent antibiotics for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012733.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Donovan, Lambert M Felix, James D Chalmers, Stephen J Milan, Alexander G Mathioudakis, Sally Spencer

Abstract

Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main treatment for bronchiectasis. The aim of continuous therapy with prophylactic antibiotics is to suppress bacterial load, but bacteria may become resistant to the antibiotic, leading to a loss of effectiveness. On the other hand, intermittent prophylactic antibiotics, given over a predefined duration and interval, may reduce antibiotic selection pressure and reduce or prevent the development of resistance. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for studies comparing continuous versus intermittent administration of antibiotic treatment in bronchiectasis in terms of clinical efficacy, the emergence of resistance and serious adverse events. To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis, using the primary outcomes of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and serious adverse events. On 1 August 2017 and 4 May 2018 we searched the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. On 25 September 2017 and 4 May 2018 we also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, conference proceedings and the reference lists of existing systematic reviews. We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with bronchiectasis that compared continuous versus intermittent administration of long-term prophylactic antibiotics of at least three months' duration. We considered eligible studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data. Two review authors independently screened the search results and full-text reports. We identified 268 unique records. Of these we retrieved and examined 126 full-text reports, representing 114 studies, but none of these studies met our inclusion criteria. No randomised controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and risks of continuous antibiotic therapy versus intermittent antibiotic therapy for bronchiectasis. High-quality clinical trials are needed to establish which of these interventions is more effective for reducing the frequency and duration of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and the occurrence of serious adverse events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 42 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Computer Science 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 47 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#698,618
of 16,649,729 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,831
of 11,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,253
of 284,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,649,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 284,284 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 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 71% of its contemporaries.