↓ Skip to main content

Mucolytic agents versus placebo for chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Mucolytic agents versus placebo for chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001287.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillippa Poole, Jimmy Chong, Christopher J Cates

Abstract

Individuals with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer recurrent exacerbations with an increase in volume or purulence of sputum, or both. Personal and healthcare costs associated with exacerbations indicate that any therapy that reduces the occurrence of exacerbations is useful. A marked difference among countries in terms of prescribing of mucolytics reflects variation in perceptions of their effectiveness. Primary objective• To determine whether treatment with mucolytics reduces frequency of exacerbations and/or days of disability in patients with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Secondary objectives• To assess whether mucolytics lead to improvement in lung function or quality of life.• To determine frequency of adverse effects associated with use of mucolytics. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles on 10 separate occasions, most recently in July 2014. We included randomised studies that compared oral mucolytic therapy versus placebo for at least two months in adults with chronic bronchitis or COPD. We excluded studies of people with asthma and cystic fibrosis. This review analysed summary data only, most derived from published studies. For earlier versions, one review author extracted data, which were rechecked in subsequent updates. In later versions, review authors double-checked extracted data and then entered data into RevMan for analysis. We added four studies for the 2014 update. The review now includes 34 trials, recruiting a total of 9367 participants. Many studies did not clearly describe allocation concealment; hence selection bias may have inflated the results, which reduces our confidence in the findings.Results of 26 studies with 6233 participants show that the likelihood that a patient could be exacerbation-free during the study period was greater among mucolytic groups (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 1.94). However, more recent studies show less benefit of treatment than was reported in earlier studies in this review. The overall number needed to treat with mucolytics for an additional beneficial outcome for an average of 10 months - to keep an additional participant free from exacerbations - was eight (NNTB 8, 95% CI 7 to 10). Use of mucolytics was associated with a reduction of 0.03 exacerbations per participant per month (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.03; participants = 7164; studies = 28; I(2) = 85%) compared with placebo, that is, about 0.36 per year, or one exacerbation every three years. Very high heterogeneity was noted for this outcome, so results need to be interpreted with caution. The type or dose of mucolytic did not seem to alter the effect size, nor did the severity of COPD, including exacerbation history. Longer studies showed smaller effects of mucolytics than were reported in shorter studies.Mucolytic use was associated with a reduction of 0.43 days of disability per participant per month compared with placebo (95% CI -0.56 to -0.30; studies = 13; I(2) = 61%). With mucolytics, the number of people with one or more hospitalisations was reduced, but study results were not consistent (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; participants = 1788; studies = 4; I(2) = 58%). Investigators reported improved quality of life with mucolytics (MD -2.64, 95% CI -5.21 to -0.08; participants = 2231; studies = 5; I(2) = 51%). Although this mean difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference of -4 units, we cannot assess the population impact, as we do not have the data needed to carry out a responder analysis. Mucolytic treatment was not associated with any significant increase in the total number of adverse effects, including mortality (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03; participants = 2931; studies = 8; I(2) = 0%), but the confidence interval is too wide to confirm that the treatment has no effect on mortality. In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with mucolytics may produce a small reduction in acute exacerbations and a small effect on overall quality of life. Our confidence in the results is reduced by the fact that effects on exacerbations shown in early trials were larger than those reported by more recent studies, possibly because the earlier smaller trials were at greater risk of selection or publication bias, thus benefits of treatment may not be as great as was suggested by previous evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 29 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,794,509
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,832
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,312
of 275,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 275,602 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 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 65% of its contemporaries.