↓ Skip to main content

Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function

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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010481.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Pablo Botero Aguirre, Alejandra Maria Restrepo Hamid

Abstract

The incidence of invasive fungal infections has increased globally as a result of several factors. Conventional amphotericin B (sodium deoxycholate) has been used as standard therapy for the treatment of invasive fungal infections; however, it is associated with adverse drug reactions, including acute kidney injury (AKI). New formulations of amphotericin B have aimed to improve the safety profile of the conventional formulation. This review aimed to assess the effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B on kidney function. We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 10 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared amphotericin B sodium deoxycholate with liposomal amphotericin B. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. We included 12 studies (2298 participants) in this review. Of these, 10 were meta-analysed (2172 participants). Liposomal amphotericin B was found to be significantly safer than conventional amphotericin B in terms of serum creatinine increase (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59). There was significant decrease in all infusion-related reactions in the liposomal group compared with the conventional group: fever (4 studies, 1092 participants): RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; I(2) = 32%); chills and/or rigours (5 studies, 1081 participants): RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48; I(2) = 75%); fever and/or rigours (2 studies, 720 participants): RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90; I(2) = 58%); nausea (6 studies, 1187 participants): RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.72; I(2) = 0%); and vomiting (3 studies, 1019 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95; I(2) = 61%). Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment and other bias (funding) tended to have a high risk of bias. The sensitivity analysis performed did not change the significance of difference in favour of the liposomal formulation. Assessment for publication bias found that review results were robust. Current evidence suggests that liposomal amphotericin B is less nephrotoxic than conventional amphotericin B (when the effect on kidney function is measured as an increase in serum creatinine level equal to or greater than two-fold from the baseline level). We also found that there were fewer infusion-related reactions associated with the liposomal formulation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 9 8%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,511,364
of 14,110,318 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,315
of 10,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,907
of 359,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,110,318 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 359,227 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.