↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Exit-Site Antibacterial Honey versus Nasal Mupirocin Prophylaxis on the Microbiology and Outcomes of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis and Exit-Site Infections: A Sub-Study of…

Overview of attention for article published in Peritoneal Dialysis International, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
The Effect of Exit-Site Antibacterial Honey versus Nasal Mupirocin Prophylaxis on the Microbiology and Outcomes of Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis and Exit-Site Infections: A Sub-Study of the Honeypot Trial
Published in
Peritoneal Dialysis International, November 2015
DOI 10.3747/pdi.2014.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lei Zhang, Sunil V. Badve, Elaine M. Pascoe, Elaine Beller, Alan Cass, Carolyn Clark, Janak de Zoysa, Nicole M. Isbel, Steven McTaggart, Alicia T. Morrish, E. Geoffrey Playford, Anish Scaria, Paul Snelling, Liza A. Vergara, Carmel M. Hawley, David W. Johnson

Abstract

♦ Background: The HONEYPOT study recently reported that daily exit-site application of antibacterial honey was not superior to nasal mupirocin prophylaxis for preventing overall peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection. This paper reports a secondary outcome analysis of the HONEYPOT study with respect to exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis microbiology, infectious hospitalization and technique failure. ♦ Methods: A total of 371 PD patients were randomized to daily exit-site application of antibacterial honey plus usual exit-site care (N = 186) or intranasal mupirocin prophylaxis (in nasal Staphylococcus aureus carriers only) plus usual exit-site care (control, N = 185). Groups were compared on rates of organism-specific ESI and peritonitis, peritonitis- and infection-associated hospitalization, and technique failure (PD withdrawal). ♦ Results: The mean peritonitis rates in the honey and control groups were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 - 0.50) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.33 - 0.49) episodes per patient-year, respectively (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.35). When specific causative organisms were examined, no differences were observed between the groups for gram-positive (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 - 1.49), gram-negative (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.29), culture-negative (IRR 2.01, 95% CI 0.91 - 4.42), or polymicrobial peritonitis (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.36 - 3.20). Exit-site infection rates were 0.37 (95% CI 0.28 - 0.45) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.26 - 0.40) episodes per patient-year for the honey and control groups, respectively (IRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 - 1.53). No significant differences were observed between the groups for gram-positive (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 - 1.72), gram-negative (IRR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.46 - 1.58), culture-negative (IRR 1.88, 95% CI 0.67 - 5.29), or polymicrobial ESI (IRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.40 - 2.54). Times to first peritonitis-associated and first infection-associated hospitalization were similar in the honey and control groups. The rates of technique failure (PD withdrawal) due to PD-related infection were not significantly different between the groups. ♦ Conclusion: Compared with standard nasal mupirocin prophylaxis, daily topical exit-site application of antibacterial honey resulted in comparable rates of organism-specific peritonitis and ESI, infection-associated hospitalization, and infection-associated technique failure in PD patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 44%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,956,097
of 14,286,148 outputs
Outputs from Peritoneal Dialysis International
#242
of 414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,303
of 265,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Peritoneal Dialysis International
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,286,148 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 414 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 265,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.