↓ Skip to main content

Antifungal therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Antifungal therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002204.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather E Elphick, Kevin W Southern, Elphick, Heather E, Southern, Kevin W

Abstract

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus and affects around 10% of people with cystic fibrosis. ABPA is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function. High doses of corticosteroids are the main treatment for ABPA; although the long-term benefits are not clear, their many side effects are well-documented. A group of compounds, the azoles, have activity against Aspergillus fumigatus and have been proposed as an alternative treatment for ABPA. Of this group, itraconazole is the most active. A separate antifungal compound, amphotericin B, has been employed in aerosolised form to treat invasive infection with Aspergillus fumigatus, and may have potential for the treatment of ABPA. Antifungal therapy for ABPA in cystic fibrosis needs to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published review. The review aimed to test the hypotheses that antifungal interventions for the treatment of ABPA in cystic fibrosis:1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or standard therapy (no placebo);2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects.If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, duration and dose of antifungal therapy. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.In addition, pharmaceutical companies were approached.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 29 September 2016. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials, where antifungal treatments have been compared to either placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of the same treatment have been used in the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis. Four trials were identified by the searches; none of which was judged eligible for inclusion in the review. No completed randomised controlled trials were included. At present, there are no randomised controlled trials to evaluate the use of antifungal therapies for the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis, although trials in people who do not have cystic fibrosis have shown clinical and serological evidence of improvement and a reduction in the use of corticosteroids with no increase in adverse effects. Trials with clear outcome measures are needed to properly evaluate this potentially useful treatment for cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Librarian 5 10%
Other 16 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 70%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,689,236
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,406
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,328
of 255,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 255,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 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.