↓ Skip to main content

From Research Question to Conducting a Randomized Controlled Trial on Continuous Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Prenatal Hydronephrosis: A Rational Stepwise Process

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
From Research Question to Conducting a Randomized Controlled Trial on Continuous Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Prenatal Hydronephrosis: A Rational Stepwise Process
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fped.2016.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis H. Braga, Bethany Easterbrook, Kizanee Jegatheeswaran, Armando J. Lorenzo

Abstract

Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) use to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) in infants with prenatal hydronephrosis (HN) remains controversial. Lack of consensus guidelines and diverse practice patterns for postnatal management of HN highlight the dire need for higher level of evidence studies. Herein, we aim to describe the steps from developing a well-defined research question to execute a multicentered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to address the issue of CAP use in patients with prenatal HN. The steps involved were (1) choosing the proper research question, (2) survey of practice patterns and establishing clinical equipoise, (3) systematic review of the literature, (4) reviewing own practice, (5) longitudinal prospective study, (6) pilot study, (7) cost-utility analysis, and (8) definitive RCT (clinical trials registry number: NCT01140516). An update of our previous systematic review was conducted using two electronic databases and gray literature from 2010 to 2015. Eligibility criteria included studies of children <2 years old with postnatally confirmed prenatal HN, receiving CAP or not, and reporting on development of UTIs, capturing information on voiding cystourethrogram result and HN grade. Full-text screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. UTI rates in patients with high-grade HN were compared across different study designs. Finally, blinded comparative analysis of UTI rates between placebo and treatment groups was carried out using chi-square test. UTI rates in patients with high-grade HN by their respective study design were: 25% for systematic review, 20% for retrospective study, 21% for prospective and pilot studies, and 13% for the definitive RCT thus far. Regardless of the type of study design, patients with hydroureteronephrosis had significantly higher (threefold to sixfold) UTI rates than those with isolated HN. Our updated systematic review yielded 486 citations, of which 9 (n = 1987 infants) observational studies met eligibility criteria. UTI rates in patients with high-grade HN dropped from 25% in observational studies to 13% in our RCT. This decline in UTI rate demonstrates that study designs lacking strategies to minimize bias are more prone to overestimate treatment effects. These findings highlight the importance of conducting methodologically sound RCTs to answer clinically meaningful questions, such as the one presented here.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,356
of 5,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,013
of 300,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#33
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 300,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.