↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 17 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 17 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 11 17%

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
#7,149,328
of 13,327,609 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,065
of 10,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,211
of 268,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,327,609 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 268,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 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.