↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of studies examining the rate of lung function decline in patients with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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 of studies examining the rate of lung function decline in patients with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.prrv.2016.03.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabariah Noor Harun, Claire Wainwright, Kerenaftali Klein, Stefanie Hennig

Abstract

A systematic review was performed (i) to describe the reported overall rate of progression of CF lung disease quantified as FEV1%predicted decline with age, (ii) to summarise identified influencing risk factors and (iii) to review methods used to analyse CF lung disease progression data. A search of publications providing FEV1%predicted values over age was conducted in PUBMED and EMBASE. Baseline and rate of FEV1%predicted decline were summarised overall and by identified risk factors. Thirty-nine studies were included and reported variable linear rates of lung function decline in patients with CF. The overall weighted mean FEV1%predicted over age was graphically summarised and showed a nonlinear, time-variant decline of lung function. Compared to their peers, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and pancreatic insufficiency were most commonly associated with lower baseline and more rapid FEV1%predicted declines respectively. Considering nonlinear models and drop-out in lung disease progression, analysis is lacking and more studies are warranted.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#5,446,210
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#108
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,962
of 314,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Paediatric Respiratory Reviews
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 314,532 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.