↓ Skip to main content

Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006961.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waters, Valerie, Ratjen, Felix

Abstract

Antibiotic therapy for acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) is usually chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of individual drugs. Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing assesses the efficacy of drug combinations including two or three antibiotics in vitro and can often demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy against bacterial isolates even when individual antibiotics have little or no effect. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment in people with CF with acute exacerbations. This is an updated version of a previously published review. To compare antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with CF and chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. We identified relevant trials from the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register.Latest search: 27 July 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in CF due to chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. Both authors independently selected trials, assessed their quality and extracted data from eligible studies. Additionally, the authors contacted the study investigators to obtain further information. The search identified one study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing (MCBT) improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of CF who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. A total of 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the participants who were only infected with P. aeruginosa for the primary outcome: time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For "Time to next pulmonary exacerbation" in the participants specifically infected with only P. aeruginosa, the hazard ratio was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% CI 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). The data did not provide evidence that combination susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing. The current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with CF with chronic P. aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre trial is needed to further investigate this issue.The only trial included in the review was published in 2005, and we have not identified any relevant trials up to September 2011. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published, although we will search the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on a two-yearly cycle.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 14%
Unknown 6 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 143%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 114%
Student > Bachelor 8 114%
Researcher 7 100%
Other 4 57%
Other 10 143%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 300%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 100%
Unspecified 3 43%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 29%
Other 12 171%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#948,973
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,173
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,273
of 252,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 252,758 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 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 59% of its contemporaries.