↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled corticosteroids for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Inhaled corticosteroids for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001915.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian M Balfour-Lynn, Karen Welch

Abstract

Reduction of lung inflammation is one of the goals of cystic fibrosis therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids are often used to treat children and adults with cystic fibrosis. The rationale for this is their potential to reduce lung damage arising from inflammation, as well as their effect on symptomatic wheezing. It is important to establish the current level of evidence for the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, especially in the light of their known adverse effects on growth. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effectiveness of taking regular inhaled corticosteroids, compared to not taking them, in children and adults with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We requested information from pharmaceutical companies manufacturing inhaled corticosteroids and authors of identified trials.Date of most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 15 August 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials, published and unpublished, comparing inhaled corticosteroids to placebo or standard treatment in individuals with cystic fibrosis. Two independent authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro formas. The searches identified 34 citations, of which 26 (representing 13 trials) were eligible for inclusion. These 13 trials reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids in 506 people with cystic fibrosis aged between six and 55 years. One was a withdrawal trial in individuals who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids. Methodological quality and risk of bias were difficult to assess from published information. Many of the risk of bias judgements were unclear due to a lack of available information. Only two trials specified how participants were randomised and less than half of the included trials gave details on how allocation was concealed. Trials were generally judged to have a low risk of bias from blinding, except for two which were open label or did not use a placebo. There were some concerns that a number of trials had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, but the risk of bias from this was unclear. Inclusion criteria varied between trials, as did type and duration of treatment and timing of outcome assessments. Objective measures of airway function were reported in most trials but were often incomplete. Significant benefit has not been conclusively demonstrated. Four trials systematically documented adverse effects and growth was significantly affected in one study using high doses. Evidence from these trials is insufficient to establish whether inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial in cystic fibrosis, but withdrawal in those already taking them has been shown to be safe. There is some evidence they may cause harm in terms of growth. It has not been established whether long-term use is beneficial in reducing lung inflammation, which should improve survival, but it is unlikely this will be proven conclusively in a randomised controlled trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 141 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 20%
Unspecified 26 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 16%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 53%
Unspecified 27 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 17 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,843,978
of 13,376,849 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,477
of 10,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,510
of 262,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,376,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 262,440 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 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 51% of its contemporaries.