↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for treating septic abortion

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Antibiotics for treating septic abortion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011528.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atim Udoh, Emmanuel E Effa, Olabisi Oduwole, Babasola O Okusanya, Obiamaka Okafo

Abstract

A septic abortion refers to any abortion (spontaneous or induced) complicated by upper genital tract infection including endometritis or parametritis. The mainstay of treatment of septic abortion is antibiotic therapy alone or in combination with evacuation of retained products of conception. Regimens including broad-spectrum antibiotics are routinely recommended for treatment. However, there is no consensus on the most effective antibiotics alone or in combination to treat septic abortion. This review aimed to bridge this gap in knowledge to inform policy and practice. To review the effectiveness of various individual antibiotics or antibiotic regimens in the treatment of septic abortion. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and POPLINE using the following keywords: 'Abortion', 'septic abortion', 'Antibiotics', 'Infected abortion', 'postabortion infection'. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials on 19 April, 2016. We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared antibiotic(s) to another antibiotic(s), irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and duration as well as studies comparing antibiotics alone with antibiotics in combination with other interventions such as dilation and curettage (D&C). Two review authors independently extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements through consultation with a third author. One review author entered extracted data into Review Manager 5.3, and a second review author cross-checked the entry for accuracy. We included 3 small RCTs involving 233 women that were conducted over 3 decades ago.Clindamycin did not differ significantly from penicillin plus chloramphenicol in reducing fever in all women (mean difference (MD) -12.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -25.12 to 0.52; women = 77; studies = 1). The evidence for this was of moderate quality. "Response to treatment was evaluated by the patient's 'fever index' expressed in degree-hour and defined as the total quantity of fever under the daily temperature curve with 99°F (37.2°C) as the baseline".There was no difference in duration of hospitalisation between clindamycin and penicillin plus chloramphenicol. The mean duration of hospital stay for women in each group was 5 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.54; women = 77; studies = 1).One study evaluated the effect of penicillin plus chloramphenicol versus cephalothin plus kanamycin before and after D&C. Response to therapy was evaluated by "the time from start of antibiotics until fever lysis and time from D&C until patients become afebrile". Low-quality evidence suggested that the effect of penicillin plus chloramphenicol on fever did not differ from that of cephalothin plus kanamycin (MD -2.30, 95% CI -17.31 to 12.71; women = 56; studies = 1). There was no significant difference between penicillin plus chloramphenicol versus cephalothin plus kanamycin when D&C was performed during antibiotic therapy (MD -1.00, 95% CI -13.84 to 11.84; women = 56; studies = 1). The quality of evidence was low.A study with unclear risk of bias showed that the time for fever resolution (MD -5.03, 95% CI -5.77 to -4.29; women = 100; studies = 1) as well as time for resolution of leukocytosis (MD -4.88, 95% CI -5.98 to -3.78; women = 100; studies = 1) was significantly lower with tetracycline plus enzymes compared with intravenous penicillin G.Treatment failure and adverse events occurred infrequently, and the difference between groups was not statistically significant. We found no strong evidence that intravenous clindamycin alone was better than penicillin plus chloramphenicol for treating women with septic abortion. Similarly, available evidence did not suggest that penicillin plus chloramphenicol was better than cephalothin plus kanamycin for the treatment of women with septic abortion. Tetracyline enzyme antibiotic appeared to be more effective than intravenous penicillin G in reducing the time to fever defervescence, but this evidence was provided by only one study at low risk of bias.There is a need for high-quality RCTs providing reliable evidence for treatments of septic abortion with antibiotics that are currently in use. The three included studies were carried out over 30 years ago. There is also a need to include institutions in low-resource settings, such as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia, with a high burden of abortion and health systems challenges.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,092,575
of 12,802,184 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,849
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,127
of 259,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,802,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 259,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.