↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobials for the treatment of drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
55 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Antimicrobials for the treatment of drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1916-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Su Young Jung, Seung Hee Lee, Soo Young Lee, Seungwon Yang, Hayeon Noh, Eun Kyoung Chung, Jangik I. Lee

Abstract

An optimal therapy for the treatment of pneumonia caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii remains unclear. This study aims to compare various antimicrobial strategies and to determine the most effective therapy for pneumonia using a network meta-analysis. Systematic search and quality assessment were performed to select eligible studies reporting one of the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiological eradication. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A network meta-analysis was conducted with a Bayesian approach. Antimicrobial treatments were ranked based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value along with estimated median outcome rate and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Two treatments were considered significantly different if a posterior probability of superiority (P) was greater than 97.5%. Twenty-three studies evaluating 15 antimicrobial treatments were included. Intravenous colistin monotherapy (IV COL) was selected as a common comparator, serving as a bridge for developing the network. Five treatments ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 57.1%; median all-cause mortality 0.45, 95% CrI 0.41-0.48) for reducing all-cause mortality: sulbactam monotherapy (SUL, 100.0%; 0.18, 0.04-0.42), high-dose SUL (HD SUL, 85.7%; 0.31, 0.07-0.71), fosfomycin plus IV COL (FOS + IV COL, 78.6%; 0.34, 0.19-0.54), inhaled COL plus IV COL (IH COL + IV COL, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.32-0.46), and high-dose tigecycline (HD TIG, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.16-0.67). Those five treatments also ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 45.5%) for improving clinical cure (72.7%, 72.7%, 63.6%, 81.8%, and 90.9%, respectively). Among the five treatments, SUL (P = 98.1%) and IH COL + IV COL (P = 99.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL for patient survival and clinical cure, respectively. In terms of microbiological eradication, FOS + IV COL (P = 99.8%) and SUL (P = 98.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL. This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated the comparative effectiveness of fifteen antimicrobial treatments for drug-resistant A. baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients. For survival benefit, SUL appears to be the best treatment followed by HD SUL, FOS + IV COL, IH COL + IV COL, HD TIG, and IV COL therapy, in numerical order.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 14%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 47 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 51 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,163,387
of 23,978,545 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,005
of 6,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,948
of 447,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#34
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,545 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 6,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 447,474 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 59% of its contemporaries.