↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic treatment for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Antibiotic treatment for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009529.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Horsley, Andrew M Jones, Robert Lord

Abstract

Chronic pulmonary infection is a hallmark of lung disease in cystic fibrosis. Infections dominated by organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex, a group of at least 18 closely-related species of gram-negative bacteria, are particularly difficult to treat. These infections may be associated with a fulminant necrotising pneumonia. Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria are resistant to many common antibiotics and able to acquire resistance against many more. Following patient segregation in cystic fibrosis medical care, the more virulent epidemic strains are not as frequent, and new infections are more likely to be with less virulent environmentally-acquired strains. Although evidence-based guidelines exist for treating respiratory exacerbations involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, these cannot be extended to Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. This review, which is an update of a previous review, aims to assess the available trial evidence for the choice and application of treatments for these infections. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing an exacerbation and chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of latest search: 28 August 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatments for exacerbations of pulmonary symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. No relevant trials were identified. No trials were included in this review. Burkholderia cepacia complex infections present a significant challenge for people with cystic fibrosis and their clinicians. The incidence is likely to increase as the cystic fibrosis population ages; and managing and treating these infections will become more important. There is a lack of trial evidence to guide decision making and no conclusions can be drawn from this review about the optimal antibiotic regimens for people with cystic fibrosis who have chronic Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. Clinicians must continue to assess each person individually, taking into account in vitro antibiotic susceptibility data, previous clinical responses and their own experience. Multicentre randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 26%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 13 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,079,020
of 14,679,099 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,106
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,357
of 336,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,679,099 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 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 336,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 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 67% of its contemporaries.