↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of cystic fibrosis lung function in the early years

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Evolution of cystic fibrosis lung function in the early years
Published in
Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1097/mcp.0000000000000209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Bush, Peter D. Sly

Abstract

Most treatment of newborn screening-diagnosed cystic fibrosis is not evidence-based; there are very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Furthermore, the advent of novel molecular therapies, which could be started at diagnosis, mandates performing RCTs in very young children. However, unless the natural history of early cystic fibrosis lung disease is known, RCTs are impossible. Here, we review the results of two large prospective cohorts of these infants - London Cystic Fibrosis Collaboration (LCFC) (London, UK) and Australian Respiratory Early Surveillance Team for Cystic Fibrosis (AREST-CF) (Australia). Nutritional status remained excellent in both the cohorts. Both cohorts reported abnormal lung function aged at 3 months. AREST-CF, which previously reported rapidly declining preschool lung function, now report good conventional school-age spirometry. LCFC reported improvement between 3 months and 1 year, and stability in the second year. AREST-CF also reported a high prevalence of high resolution computed tomographic abnormalities related to free neutrophil elastase in bronchoalveolar lavage; LCFC reported high resolution computed tomographic changes at 1 year, which were too mild to be scored reproducibly. At least in the first 2 years of life, lung function is not a good end-point for RCTs; routine bronchoalveolar lavage and HRCT cannot be justified. Newborn screening has greatly improved outcomes, but we need better point-of-care biomarkers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,915,082
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in pulmonary medicine
#289
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,634
of 295,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in pulmonary medicine
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 295,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.