↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters in external ventricular drainage - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Clinical review: Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters in external ventricular drainage - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12608
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiang Wang, Yan Dong, Xiang-Qian Qi, Yi-Ming Li, Cheng-Guang Huang, Li-Jun Hou

Abstract

To assess the efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters in preventing catheter-related infections during external ventricular drainage (EVD), we performed a meta-analysis and systematic review. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized prospective studies (NPSs) related to antimicrobial-impregnated EVD catheters were included. The primary outcome was the rate of cerebrospinal fluid infection (CFI). The secondary outcomes included the rate of time-dependent CFI and catheter bacterial colonization. We further performed subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis, and microbial spectrum analysis. Four RCTs and four NPSs were included. The overall rate of CFIs was 3.6% in the antimicrobial-impregnated catheter group and 13.7% in the standard catheter group. The pooled data demonstrated that antimicrobial-impregnated catheters were superior to standard catheters in lowering the rate of CFIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12 to 0.52, P <0.05). In survival analysis, the 20-day infection rate was significantly reduced with the use of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.95, P <0.05). Furthermore, a significantly decreased rate of catheter bacterial colonization was noticed for antimicrobial-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.64, P <0.05). In subgroup analyses, although significant results remained for RCTs and NPSs, a subgroup difference was revealed (P <0.05). Compared with standard catheters, a significantly lower rate of CFIs was noticed for clindamycin/rifampin-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.73, P <0.05) and for minocycline/rifampin-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.21, P <0.05). However, no statistical significance was found when compared with silver-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.69, P = 0.18). In microbial spectrum analysis, antimicrobial-impregnated catheters were shown to have a lower rate of Gram-positive bacterial infection, particularly the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. In conclusion, the use of antimicrobial-impregnated EVD catheters could be beneficial for the prevention of CFI and catheter bacterial colonization. Although antibiotic-coated catheters seem to be effective, no sufficient evidence supports the efficacy of silver-impregnated catheters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 52%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 23 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,047,316
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,931
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,447
of 209,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 209,986 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 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 61% of its contemporaries.