↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic therapy for skin and soft tissue infections: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Antibiotic therapy for skin and soft tissue infections: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0804-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica J. Bartoszko, Dominik Mertz, Lehana Thabane, Mark Loeb

Abstract

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) in hospital and community settings impose a substantial socio-economic burden. Therapeutic uncertainty due to the availability of a wide range of antibiotics and the need for empirical treatment decisions complicate SSTI clinical management. Completion of numerous pairwise meta-analyses to account for this variability in antibiotics is impractical, and many head-to-head comparisons of potential interest are likely not available. In comparing multiple antibiotics simultaneously, this network meta-analysis aims to identify the antibiotic(s) with the greatest value in the treatment of SSTIs, in terms of patient-important outcomes such as efficacy and safety. We will conduct a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials of persons with suspected or confirmed SSTI assigned to orally or parenterally administered antibiotic therapy that report results on at least one outcome of interest. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), along with trial registries. Our primary outcome of interest is clinical success at the test-of-cure visit. Secondary outcomes may include (1) early clinical success (2-3 days after the therapy starts), (2) mortality, (3) adverse events, (4) treatment duration, and (5) length of hospital stay. Independent reviewers will complete screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool), and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (using the GRADE approach) in duplicate. We will complete pairwise and network meta-analyses within the Bayesian framework when possible using a random effects model. We will stratify SSTIs by severity into uncomplicated and complicated SSTIs when possible. Subgroup analyses by age, infection type, comorbidity, and suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-associated infection are planned. This study has several strengths compared to previous reviews: inclusion of a wider range of infection types, antibiotics, and outcomes; a comprehensive search strategy; a priori subgroup analyses; application of GRADE; and improved interpretability of findings through visual presentation of results. We hope our findings will inform future research, health care professionals, and policy makers resulting in improved evidence-based clinical management of SSTIs. PROSPERO CRD42018085607.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 32 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 36 45%
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 11 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,827,116
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,236
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,855
of 336,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#48
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 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 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 336,872 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.