↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009880.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martí-Carvajal, Arturo J, Dayer, Mark, Conterno, Lucieni O, Gonzalez Garay, Alejandro G, Martí-Amarista, Cristina Elena, Simancas-Racines, Daniel

Abstract

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible. To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively. Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life. Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 31%
Student > Master 3 23%
Other 3 23%
Unspecified 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Unspecified 2 15%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 24 July 2016.
All research outputs
#356,742
of 8,098,931 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,560
of 8,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,623
of 272,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,098,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 272,319 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 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 65% of its contemporaries.