↓ Skip to main content

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008227.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Usha Rani Somaraju, Arturo Solis-Moya

Abstract

Most people with cystic fibrosis (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. This is an updated version of a published review. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in children and adults with cystic fibrosis and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of this therapy and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in cystic fibrosis according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function). 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. Most recent search: 15 July 2016.We also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 22 July 2016. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with cystic fibrosis and receiving pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy preparations. Two authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias of the trials included in the review. One parallel trial and 12 cross-over trials of children and adults with cystic fibrosis were included in the review. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129 with a total of 512 participants included in the review. All the included trials were for a duration of four weeks. The included trials had mostly an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also mostly had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias.We could not combine data from all the trials as they compared different formulations. Findings from individual studies provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations. Ten studies reported information on the review's primary outcome (nutritional status); however, we were only able to combine data from two small cross-over studies (n = 41). The estimated gain in body weight was imprecise, 0.32 kg (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.67; P = 0.07). Combined data from the same studies gave statistically significant results favouring enteric-coated microspheres over enteric-coated tablets for our secondary outcomes stool frequency, mean difference -0.58 (95% confidence interval -0.85 to -0.30; P < 0.0001); proportion of days with abdominal pain, mean difference -7.96% (95% confidence interval -12.97 to -2.94; P = 0.002); and fecal fat excretion, mean difference -11.79 g (95% confidence interval -17.42 to -6.15; P < 0.0001). Data from another single small cross-over study also favoured enteric-coated microspheres over non-enteric-coated tablets with adjuvant cimetidine in terms of stool frequency, mean difference -0.70 (95% confidence interval -0.90 to -0.50; P < 0.00001). There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over studies is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the studies due to over-inflation of confidence intervals from the individual studies.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed study that can answer these questions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 26 23%

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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,502,509
of 13,911,058 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,321
of 10,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,618
of 379,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,911,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 379,717 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.