↓ 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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 16 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 162 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 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 10 6%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Psychology 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 39 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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
#2,032,149
of 16,531,499 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,764
of 11,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,520
of 236,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,531,499 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 236,768 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 51% of its contemporaries.