↓ Skip to main content

Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
77 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010406.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chamira Rodrigo, Jo Leonardi‐Bee, Jonathan Nguyen‐Van‐Tam, Wei Shen Lim

Abstract

Specific treatments for influenza are limited to neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Corticosteroids show evidence of benefit in sepsis and related conditions, most likely due to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Although commonly prescribed for severe influenza, there is uncertainty over their potential benefit or harm. To systematically assess the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza, taking into account differences in timing and doses of corticosteroids. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 1, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to June 2015), CINAHL (1981 to June 2015), LILACS (1982 to June 2015), Web of Science (1985 to June 2015), abstracts from the last three years of major infectious disease and microbiology conferences, and references of included articles. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies that compared corticosteroid treatment with no corticosteroid treatment for influenza or influenza-like illness. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza subtypes, clinical setting or age of participants. We selected eligible studies in two stages: sequential examination of title and abstract, followed by full text. Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled estimates of effect using random-effects meta-analysis models, where appropriate. We assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We identified 19 eligible studies (3459 individuals), all observational; 13 studies (1917 individuals) were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis of mortality. Of these, 12 studied patients infected with 2009 influenza A H1N1 virus (H1N1pdm09). Risk of bias was greatest in the 'comparability domain' of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, consistent with potential confounding by indication. Data specific to mortality were of very low quality. Reported doses of corticosteroids used were high and indications for their use were not well reported. On meta-analysis, corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 5.92). Pooled subgroup analysis of adjusted estimates of mortality from four studies found a similar association (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.92). Three studies reported greater odds of hospital-acquired infection related to corticosteroid therapy; all were unadjusted estimates and we graded the data as very low quality. We did not identify any completed RCTs of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy for treating influenza. The available evidence from observational studies is of very low quality with confounding by indication a major potential concern. Although we found that adjunctive corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality, this result should be interpreted with caution. In the context of clinical trials of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in sepsis and pneumonia that report improved outcomes, including decreased mortality, more high-quality research is needed (both RCTs and observational studies). Currently, we do not have sufficient evidence in this review to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids for patients with influenza.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Master 20 13%
Other 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 05 June 2022.
All research outputs
#538,229
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#943
of 13,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,499
of 314,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 314,152 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 96% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.