↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for chronic methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Treatment for chronic methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011581.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molla Imaduddin Ahmed, Saptarshi Mukherjee

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited life-threatening multisystem disorder with lung disease characterized by abnormally thick airway secretions and persistent bacterial infection. Chronic, progressive lung disease is the most important cause of morbidity and mortality in the condition and is therefore the main focus of clinical care and research. Staphylococcus aureus is a major cause of chest infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Early onset, as well as chronic, lung infection with this organism in young children and adults results in worsening lung function, poorer nutrition and increases the airway inflammatory response, thus leading to a poor overall clinical outcome. There are currently no evidence-based guidelines for chronic suppressive therapy for Staphylococcus aureus infection in cystic fibrosis such as those used for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term antibiotic treatment regimens for chronic infection with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infection in people with cystic fibrosis and to determine whether this leads to improved clinical and microbiological outcomes. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, handsearching article reference lists and through contact with local and international experts in the field. Date of the last search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 09 February 2018.We also searched ongoing trials databases. Date of latest search: 20 May 2018. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any combinations of topical, inhaled, oral or intravenous antimicrobials used as suppressive therapy for chronic infection with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus compared with placebo or no treatment. The authors independently assessed all search results for eligibility. No eligible trials were identified. The searches identified 58 trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in the current version of this review. No randomised controlled trials were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this review. Although methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus is an important and common cause of lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis, there is no agreement on how best to treat long-term infection. The review highlights the need to organise well-designed trials that can provide evidence to support the best management strategy for chronic methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infection in people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Other 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 36 41%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,547,995
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,129
of 12,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,342
of 330,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.