↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0855-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric J Bow, David J Vanness, Monica Slavin, Catherine Cordonnier, Oliver A Cornely, David I Marks, Antonio Pagliuca, Carlos Solano, Lael Cragin, Alissa J Shaul, Sonja Sorensen, Richard Chambers, Michal Kantecki, David Weinstein, Haran Schlamm

Abstract

Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Other 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 20 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,179,036
of 23,905,714 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,267
of 7,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,203
of 289,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#28
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,905,714 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 289,383 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.