↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis: tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils)

Overview of attention for article published in Thorax, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
307 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
A systematic review and meta-analysis: tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils)
Published in
Thorax, October 2010
DOI 10.1136/thx.2010.135574
Pubmed ID
Authors

H L Petsky, C J Cates, T J Lasserson, A M Li, C Turner, J A Kynaston, A B Chang

Abstract

Asthma severity and control can be measured both subjectively and objectively. Traditionally asthma treatments have been individualised using symptoms and spirometry/peak flow. Increasingly treatment tailored in accordance with inflammatory markers (sputum eosinophil counts or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) data) is advocated as an alternative strategy. The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on inflammatory markers (sputum analysis and FeNO) in comparison with clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma-related outcomes in children and adults. Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles were searched. The last searches were in February 2009. All randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma treatment based on sputum analysis or FeNO compared with traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow) were selected. Results of searches were reviewed against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Relevant studies were selected, assessed and data extracted independently by at least two people. The trial authors were contacted for further information. Data were analysed as 'intervention received' and sensitivity analyses performed. Six (2 adults and 4 children/adolescent) studies utilising FeNO and three adult studies utilising sputum eosinophils were included. These studies had a degree of clinical heterogeneity including definition of asthma exacerbations, duration of study and variations in cut-off levels for percentage of sputum eosinophils and FeNO to alter management in each study. Adults who had treatment adjusted according to sputum eosinophils had a reduced number of exacerbations compared with the control group (52 vs. 77 patients with ≥1 exacerbation in the study period; p=0.0006). There was no significant difference in exacerbations between groups for FeNO compared with controls. The daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids at the end of the study was decreased in adults whose treatment was based on FeNO in comparison with the control group (mean difference -450.03 μg, 95% CI -676.73 to -223.34; p<0.0001). However, children who had treatment adjusted according to FeNO had an increase in their mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference 140.18 μg, 95% CI 28.94 to 251.42; p=0.014). It was concluded that tailoring of asthma treatment based on sputum eosinophils is effective in decreasing asthma exacerbations. However, tailoring of asthma treatment based on FeNO levels has not been shown to be effective in improving asthma outcomes in children and adults. At present, there is insufficient justification to advocate the routine use of either sputum analysis (due to technical expertise required) or FeNO in everyday clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 186 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 15%
Other 23 12%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 58 29%
Unknown 26 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Chemistry 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 37 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,598,018
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Thorax
#694
of 5,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,770
of 98,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thorax
#4
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 98,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.