↓ Skip to main content

Drugs for treating Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulceransdisease)

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

2 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


9 Dimensions

Readers on

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.
Drugs for treating Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulceransdisease)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012118.pub2
Pubmed ID

Rie R Yotsu, Marty Richardson, Norihisa Ishii


Buruli ulcer is a necrotizing cutaneous infection caused by infection with Mycobacterium ulcerans bacteria that occurs mainly in tropical and subtropical regions. The infection progresses from nodules under the skin to deep ulcers, often on the upper and lower limbs or on the face. If left undiagnosed and untreated, it can lead to lifelong disfigurement and disabilities. It is often treated with drugs and surgery. To summarize the evidence of drug treatments for treating Buruli ulcer. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; BIREME). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). All searches were run up to 19 December 2017. We also checked the reference lists of articles identified by the literature search, and contacted leading researchers in this topic area to identify any unpublished data. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antibiotic therapy to placebo or alternative therapy such as surgery, or that compared different antibiotic regimens. We also included prospective observational studies that evaluated different antibiotic regimens with or without surgery. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed methodological quality. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included a total of 18 studies: five RCTs involving a total of 319 participants, ranging from 12 participants to 151 participants, and 13 prospective observational studies, with 1665 participants. Studies evaluated various drugs usually in addition to surgery, and were carried out across eight countries in areas with high Buruli ulcer endemicity in West Africa and Australia. Only one RCT reported adequate methods to minimize bias. Regarding monotherapy, one RCT and one observational study evaluated clofazimine, and one RCT evaluated sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. All three studies had small sample sizes, and no treatment effect was demonstrated. The remaining studies examined combination therapy.Rifampicin combined with streptomycinWe found one RCT and six observational studies which evaluated rifampicin combined with streptomycin for different lengths of treatment (2, 4, 8, or 12 weeks) (941 participants). The RCT did not demonstrate a difference between the drugs added to surgery compared with surgery alone for recurrence at 12 months, but was underpowered (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.51; 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence).An additional five single-arm observational studies with 828 participants using this regimen for eight weeks with surgery (given to either all participants or to a select group) reported healing rates ranging from 84.5% to 100%, assessed between six weeks and one year. Four observational studies reported healing rates for participants who received the regimen alone without surgery, reporting healing rates ranging from 48% to 95% assessed between eight weeks and one year.Rifampicin combined with clarithromycinTwo observational studies administered combined rifampicin and clarithromycin. One study evaluated the regimen alone (no surgery) for eight weeks and reported a healing rate of 50% at 12 months (30 participants). Another study evaluated the regimen administered for various durations (as determined by the clinicians, durations unspecified) with surgery and reported a healing rate of 100% at 12 months (21 participants).Rifampicin with streptomycin initially, changing to rifampicin with clarithromycin in consolidation phaseOne RCT evaluated this regimen (four weeks in each phase) against continuing with rifampicin and streptomycin in the consolidation phase (total eight weeks). All included participants had small lesions, and healing rates were above 90% in both groups without surgery (healing rate at 12 months RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). One single-arm observational study evaluating the substitution of streptomycin with clarithromycin in the consolidation phase (6 weeks, total 8 weeks) without surgery given to a select group showed a healing rate of 98% at 12 months (41 participants).Novel combination therapyTwo large prospective studies in Australia evaluated some novel regimens. One study evaluating rifampicin combined with either ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, or moxifloxacin without surgery reported a healing rate of 76.5% at 12 months (132 participants). Another study evaluating combinations of two to three drugs from rifampicin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, ethambutol, moxifloxacin, or amikacin with surgery reported a healing rate of 100% (90 participants).Adverse effects were reported in only three RCTs (158 participants) and eight prospective observational studies (878 participants), and were consistent with what is already known about the adverse effect profile of these drugs. Paradoxical reactions (clinical deterioration after treatment caused by enhanced immune response to M ulcerans) were evaluated in six prospective observational studies (822 participants), and the incidence of paradoxical reactions ranged from 1.9% to 26%. While the antibiotic combination treatments evaluated appear to be effective, we found insufficient evidence showing that any particular drug is more effective than another. How different sizes, lesions, and stages of the disease may contribute to healing and which kind of lesions are in need of surgery are unclear based on the included studies. Guideline development needs to consider these factors in designing practical treatment regimens. Forthcoming trials using clarithromycin with rifampicin and other trials of new regimens that also address these factors will help to identify the best regimens.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 24 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,335,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 276,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,335,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 276,901 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.