↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 682)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
84 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 efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12941-017-0199-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Wang, Yaping Pan, Jilu Shen, Yuanhong Xu

Abstract

Patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) are associated with high mortality rates. Due to tigecycline has shown excellent in vitro activity against most pathogens, tigecycline is selected as one of the candidate drugs for the treatment of multidrug-resistant organisms infections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the use of tigecycline for the treatment of patients with BSI. The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched, to identify published studies, and we searched clinical trial registries to identify completed unpublished studies, the results of which were obtained through the manufacturer. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of clinical cure and microbiological success. 24 controlled studies were included in this systematic review. All-cause mortality was lower with tigecycline than with control antibiotic agents, but the difference was not significant (OR 0.85, [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-2.33; P = 0.745]). Clinical cure was significantly higher with tigecycline groups (OR 1.76, [95% CI 1.26-2.45; P = 0.001]). Eradication efficiency did not differ between tigecycline and control regimens, but the sample size for these comparisons was small. Subgroup analyses showed good clinical cure result in bacteremia patients with CAP. Tigecycline monotherapy was associated with a OR of 2.73 (95% CI 1.53-4.87) for mortality compared with tigecycline combination therapy (6 studies; 250 patients), without heterogeneity. Five studies reporting on 398 patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae BSI showed significantly lower mortality in the tigecycline arm than in the control arm. The combined treatment with tigecycline may be considered the optimal option for severely ill patients with BSI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 33 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 37 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 21 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,970,993
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#31
of 682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,559
of 325,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 325,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 94% of its contemporaries.