↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009730.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew N Hurley, Andrew P Prayle, Patrick Flume

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is a multi-system disease characterised by the production of thick secretions causing recurrent pulmonary infection, often with unusual bacteria. Intravenous antibiotics are commonly used in the treatment of acute deteriorations in symptoms (pulmonary exacerbations); however, recently the assumption that exacerbations are due to increases in bacterial burden has been questioned. To establish if intravenous antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis improve short- and long-term clinical outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and ongoing trials registers.Date of last search of Cochrane trials register: 27 July 2015. Randomised controlled trials and the first treatment cycle of cross-over studies comparing intravenous antibiotics (given alone or in an antibiotic combination) with placebo, inhaled or oral antibiotics for people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation. The authors assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We included 40 studies involving 1717 participants. The quality of the included studies was largely poor and, with a few exceptions, these comprised of mainly small, inadequately reported studies.When comparing treatment with a single antibiotic to a combined antibiotic regimen, those participants receiving a combination of antibiotics experienced a greater improvement in lung function when considered as a whole group across a number of different measurements of lung function, but with very low quality evidence. When limited to the four placebo-controlled studies (n = 214), no difference was observed, again with very low quality evidence. With regard to the review's remaining primary outcomes, there was no effect upon time to next exacerbation and no studies in any comparison reported on quality of life. There were no effects on the secondary outcomes weight or adverse effects. When comparing specific antibiotic combinations there were no significant differences between groups on any measure. In the comparisons between intravenous and nebulised antibiotic or oral antibiotic (low quality evidence), there were no significant differences between groups on any measure. No studies in any comparison reported on quality of life. The quality of evidence comparing intravenous antibiotics with placebo is poor. No specific antibiotic combination can be considered to be superior to any other, and neither is there evidence showing that the intravenous route is superior to the inhaled or oral routes. There remains a need to understand host-bacteria interactions and in particular to understand why many people fail to fully respond to treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 34 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,559,622
of 14,737,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,163
of 11,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,061
of 232,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,737,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. 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 232,786 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 56% of its contemporaries.