↓ Skip to main content

The use of inhaled antibiotic therapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and tracheobronchitis: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
126 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 use of inhaled antibiotic therapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and tracheobronchitis: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0202-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher J. Russell, Mark S. Shiroishi, Elizabeth Siantz, Brian W. Wu, Cecilia M. Patino

Abstract

Ventilator-associated respiratory infections (tracheobronchitis, pneumonia) contribute significant morbidity and mortality to adults receiving care in intensive care units (ICU). Administration of broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics, the current standard of care, may have systemic adverse effects. The efficacy of aerosolized antibiotics for treatment of ventilator-associated respiratory infections remains unclear. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of aerosolized antibiotics in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and tracheobronchitis (VAT), using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. We conducted a search of three databases (PubMed, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Collaboration) for randomized, controlled trials studying the use of nebulized antibiotics in VAP and VAT that measured clinical cure (e.g., change in Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score) as an outcome measurement. We augmented the electronic searches with hand searches of the references for any narrative review articles as well as any article included in the systematic review. Included studies were examined for risk of bias using the Cochrane Handbook's "Risk of Bias" assessment tool. Six studies met full inclusion criteria. For the systemic review's primary outcome (clinical cure), two studies found clinically and statistically significant improvements in measures of VAP cure while four found no statistically significant difference in measurements of cure. No studies found inferiority of aerosolized antibiotics. The included studies had various degrees of biases, particularly in the performance and detection bias domains. Given that outcome measures of clinical cure were not uniform, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence for the use of inhaled antibiotic therapy as primary or adjuvant treatment of VAP or VAT. Additional, better-powered randomized-controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of inhaled antibiotic therapy for VAP and VAT.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Other 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Unspecified 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,840,844
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#963
of 1,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,295
of 299,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 299,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.