↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Synergy effect of meropenem-based combinations against Acinetobacter baumannii: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Infection and Drug Resistance, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Synergy effect of meropenem-based combinations against Acinetobacter baumannii: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Infection and Drug Resistance, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/idr.s172137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhihui Jiang, Xianxia He, Jian Li

Abstract

The main objective of our meta-analysis was to examine the in vitro synergistic effect of meropenem-based combination therapies against Acinetobacter baumannii through a systematic review of the existing literature. An extensive search was performed with no restrictions on date of publication, language, and publication type. Our study evaluated the main conclusions drawn from various studies describing the synergistic activity of combination therapies in vitro. In this review, 56 published studies were included. Our report included data on 20 types of antibiotics combined with meropenem in 1,228 Acinetobacter baumannii isolates. In time-kill studies, meropenem combined with polymyxin B and rifampicin showed synergy rates of 98.3% (95% CI, 83.7%-100.0%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 57.2%-100.0%), respectively, for Acinetobacter baumannii, modest synergy rates were found for meropenem combined with several antibiotics such as colistin and sulbactam, and no synergy effect was displayed in the combination of meropenem and ciprofloxacin, whereas in checkerboard method, the synergy rates of polymyxin B and rifampicin were 37.0% (95% CI, 0.00%-100.0%) and 56.3% (95% CI, 8.7%-97.8%), respectively. We found that time-kill studies generally identified the greatest synergy, while checkerboard and Etest methods yielded relatively poor synergy rates. Further well-designed in vivo studies should be carried out to confirm these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 11 44%
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 20 December 2019.
All research outputs
#14,423,597
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Infection and Drug Resistance
#535
of 1,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,341
of 331,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection and Drug Resistance
#27
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,698 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 331,040 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 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.