↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis patients: challenges to treatment adherence and strategies to improve outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis patients: challenges to treatment adherence and strategies to improve outcomes
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s53653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Réka Bodnár, Ágnes Mészáros, Máté Oláh, Tamás Ágh

Abstract

Inhaled antibiotics (ABs) are recommended for use in the therapy of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify level of adherence to inhaled ABs and to determine predictors and consequences of nonadherence in CF. A systematic literature search of English-language articles was conducted in April 2015 using Medline and Embase. No publication date limit was applied. The literature screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. All of the included studies were assessed for quality. The search yielded 193 publications, of which ten met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. Seven studies focused on inhaled tobramycin, one on inhaled colistimethate, one on inhaled levofloxacin, and one on inhaled aztreonam lysine. Medication adherence to inhaled ABs was analyzed by pharmacy refill history, daily phone diary, parent and child self-reports, vials counting, or electronic monitoring. In randomized controlled trials (n=3), proportion of adherent patients (>75%-80% of required doses taken) ranged from 86% to 97%; in prospective cohort studies (n=3), adherence rates ranged between 36% and 92%, and in retrospective studies (n=4) it ranged between 60% and 70%. The adherence to inhaled ABs in CF was found to be associated with the complexity of treatment, time of drug administration, age of patients, treatment burden (adverse events, taste), and patient satisfaction. The high diversity of adherence data was because of the different study designs (randomized controlled trials vs real-world studies) and the lack of a commonly accepted consensus on the definition of adherence in the reviewed articles. Routine adherence monitoring during CF care, discussing the possible reasons of suboptimal adherence with the patient, and changing treatment regimens on the basis of patient burden can individualize CF therapy for patients and may improve the level of adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Psychology 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#778
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,234
of 406,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 406,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 54% of its contemporaries.