↓ Skip to main content

Nebulized and oral thiol derivatives for pulmonary disease in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Nebulized and oral thiol derivatives for pulmonary disease in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007168.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Tam, Edward F Nash, Felix Ratjen, Elizabeth Tullis, Anne Stephenson

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition resulting in thickened, sticky respiratory secretions. Respiratory failure, due to recurrent pulmonary infection and inflammation, is the most common cause of mortality. Muco-active therapies (e.g. dornase alfa and nebulized hypertonic saline) may decrease sputum viscosity, increase airway clearance of sputum, reduce infection and inflammation and improve lung function. Thiol derivatives, either oral or nebulized, have shown benefit in other respiratory diseases. Their mode of action is likely to differ according to the route of administration. There are several thiol derivatives, and it is unclear which of these may be beneficial in cystic fibrosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 48 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,889,060
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,288
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,087
of 207,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 341 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 207,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 341 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.