↓ Skip to main content

Timing of hypertonic saline inhalation for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Timing of hypertonic saline inhalation for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008816.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Elkins, Ruth Dentice

Abstract

Inhalation of hypertonic saline improves sputum rheology, accelerates mucociliary clearance and improves clinical outcomes of people with cystic fibrosis. To determine whether the timing of hypertonic saline inhalation (in relation to airway clearance techniques or in relation to time of day) has an impact on its clinical efficacy in people with cystic fibrosis. We identified relevant randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and international cystic fibrosis conference proceedings.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 19 December 2016. Any trial of hypertonic saline in people with cystic fibrosis where timing of inhalation was the randomised element in the study protocol with either: inhalation up to six hours before airway clearance techniques compared to inhalation during airway clearance techniques compared to inhalation up to six hours after airway clearance techniques; or morning compared to evening inhalation with any definition provided by the author. Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review. The searches identified 97 trial reports which represented 46 studies, of which two studies (providing data on 63 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Both studies used a cross-over design. Both studies had low risk of all types of bias except the participants and the therapists who applied the treatments were not blinded. Intervention periods ranged from one treatment to three treatments in one day. The effects of the various regimens on lung function were non-significant. Satisfaction was rated significantly lower on a 100-mm scale when hypertonic saline was inhaled after the airway clearance techniques: mean differences 20.38 mm (95% confidence interval 12.10 to 28.66) compared to before airway clearance techniques and 14.80 mm (95% confidence interval 5.70 to 23.90) compared to during the techniques. Perceived effectiveness showed similar significant results. Other outcomes were unaffected by the timing regimen used. No trials compared morning versus evening inhalation of hypertonic saline. People with cystic fibrosis could be encouraged to inhale hypertonic saline before or during airway clearance techniques to maximise perceived efficacy and satisfaction, even though these timing regimens may not have any better effect on lung function than inhalation after airway clearance techniques. Given the long-term efficacy of hypertonic saline has only been established for twice-daily inhalations, clinicians should advise patients to inhale hypertonic saline twice daily. However, if only one dose per day is tolerated, the time of day at which it is inhaled could be based on convenience or tolerability until evidence comparing these regimens is available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,018,200
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,205
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,982
of 362,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 362,866 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 56% of its contemporaries.