Antibiotics for trachoma

Mabey, David; Fraser‐Hurt, Nicole; Powell, Christine

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001860

Cited by 26 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…of citations Web of ScienceNo. of citations, ScopusBarsam 2012 [20]311Barsam 2010 [19]2374Buehl 2008 [22]402222Findl 2007 [21]1004337Calderon 2011 [11]322021Calderon 2011 [7]1971Calderon 2012 [12]N/A a N/A a 0Evans 2008 [4]823749Evans 2006 [5]1114514Evans 2008 [6]283335Fedorowicz 2006 [24]1286Fedorowicz 2005 [23]4710Gnanaraj 2005 [34]1239Richardson 2003 [33]32412Leyland 2003 [28]183109130Leyland 2001 [27]872618Lueck 2002 [30]11N/A a 8Lueck 2002 [29]77010Mabey 2003 [32]N/A a N/A a 5Mabey 2002 [31]6969Sheikh 2001 [13]814352Sheikh 2000 [8]1583321Sheikh 2005 [14]542530Shortt 2006 [36]693950Shortt 2006 [35]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1994, and co-publication (publication of a Cochrane review in another journal) has been allowed since that time, as long as the co-publishing journal has agreed to the arrangement. Although standards for co-publication were established in 2008, the frequency of co-publication and adherence to the standards have remained largely unexamined. Our objective was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to the co-publication policy, the relative numbers of citations of the two modes of publishing, and differences in times cited in CSRs with and without a co-publication.MethodsWe identified all CEVG reviews published by May 30, 2014 in The Cochrane Library. Using keywords from the title, author names, and “Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group”, we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify possible co-publications. We also emailed contact authors of all identified CEVG reviews to ask them whether they had published their CSR elsewhere. We compared each co-publication to the corresponding CEVG review for adherence to the Cochrane Policy Manual (dated June 10, 2014). We recorded the number of times each CEVG review and each co-publication had been cited by others according to Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, as of June 11, 2014.ResultsWe identified 117 CEVG reviews;19 had been co-published in 22 articles. Adherence to Cochrane policy on co-publication was moderate, with all authors complying with at least one of four requirements we addressed. Co-publications were cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews; CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication were cited approximately twice as often as CEVG reviews without a co-publication. The number of citations varied considerably depending on whether the CEVG review had a co-publication or not.ConclusionsThe findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors such as the possibility that CEVG reviews with a co-publication covered more clinically important and timely topics than those without a co-publication. Assuming that citations are a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the 15-year CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews suggests that Cochrane authors should be encouraged to co-publish in traditional medical journals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0104-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic review of the effect of antibiotics on trachoma is available in the Cochrane Library [26]. The subject of the review is whether antibiotics are more effective than placebo/no treatment in resolving active trachoma and ocular C. trachomatis infection and the comparative efficacies of various antibiotic regimens.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of antibiotic treatment on active trachoma and ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infection

Mabey¹,

Solomon²

2003

Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antibiotics are one of four arms of the SAFE strategy for the control of trachoma, an eye infection that is responsible for more cases of blindness than any condition other than cataract. The evidence for the use of topical tetracycline and oral tetracycline, doxycycline, erythromycin, cotrimoxazole and azithromycin in trachoma are reviewed here and a number of issues are nominated as research and policy priorities.

show abstract

“…Reductions in the level of the other three indicators of SAFE were significant. Antibiotic is strongly associated with reduction in active trachoma 10 14 29 30. Health education and promotion reduces risk of active trachoma especially when combined with antibiotics 10 31.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Antibiotic is strongly associated with reduction in active trachoma 10 14 29 30. Health education and promotion reduces risk of active trachoma especially when combined with antibiotics 10 31. The evidence on F and E components or the effect of latrines as fly control measure is weak 12 32.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%