↓ Skip to main content

Macrolides for chronic asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Macrolides for chronic asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002997.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Richeldi, Giovanni Ferrara, Leonardo Fabbri, Toby J Lasserson, Peter G Gibson

Abstract

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airways in which inflammation of the respiratory mucosa plays a crucial role. The mechanisms responsible for the maintaining of this inflammatory response are only partially known and there is evidence that a role could be paid by chronic infection by intracellular pathogens (such as Chlamydia pneumoniae). Macrolides are antibiotics with both antimicrobic and antiinflammatory activities and thus their use in asthmatic patients could lead to reduction of the airways inflammation and therefore improvement of symptoms and pulmonary function. To determine whether macrolides are effective in the management of patients with chronic asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials up to May 2005. This was also supplemented by manually searching bibliographies of previously published reviews, conference proceedings, and contacting study authors. All languages were included in the initial search. Randomised, controlled clinical trials involving both children and adult patients with chronic asthma treated with macrolides for more than 4 weeks, versus placebo. Two reviewers independently examined all identified articles. The full text of any potentially relevant article was reviewed independently by two reviewers. Seven studies recruiting a total of 416 participants met the inclusion criteria. The quality of reporting of study methodology was generally low. We assembled findings from studies comparing macrolide treatment for at least 4 weeks in adult and pediatric patients treated for chronic asthma. Four studies showed a positive effect on symptoms of macrolides in different types of asthmatic patients. There were limited data available for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in FEV1 for either parallel or crossover trials. However, there were significant differences in eosinophilic inflammation and symptoms. One large parallel group trial reported significant differences in peak flow but these differences abated within six months of treatment. Considering the small number of patients studied, there is insufficient evidence to support or to refute the use of macrolides in patients with chronic asthma. Further studies are needed in particular to clarify the potential role of macrolides in some subgroups of asthmatics such as those with evidence of chronic bacterial infection.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 September 2009.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,349
of 70,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 70,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.