↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
129 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 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
Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004969.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anirudha Agnihotry, Zbys Fedorowicz, Esther J van Zuuren, Allan G Farman, Jassim Hasan Al-Langawi

Abstract

Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2013. To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 January 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12); MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 27 January 2016); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 27 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 27 January 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 27 January 2016). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. Two review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the quality of the evidence of included studies using GRADEpro software. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. One trial assessed at low risk of bias, involving 40 participants was included in this update of the review. The quality of the body of evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention and placebo groups over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.2 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.6 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P value = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.9 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P value = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study. This systematic review which was based on one low powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 129 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 %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. 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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#215,480
of 16,063,105 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#456
of 11,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,757
of 267,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,063,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 267,885 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.