↓ Skip to main content

Aerosolized prostacyclins for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Aerosolized prostacyclins for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007733.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arash Afshari, Anders Bastholm Bille, Mikkel Allingstrup

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Aerosolized prostacyclin has been used to improve oxygenation despite the limited evidence available so far.This review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017. To assess the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children with ARDS. In this update, we searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4); MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and three trials registers. We handsearched the reference lists of the latest reviews, randomized and non-randomized trials, and editorials, and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception to 5 May 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data. Three authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We planned to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children, and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of methodological trial components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We included two RCTs with 81 participants.One RCT involved 14 critically ill children with ARDS (very low quality of evidence), and one RCT involved 67 critically ill adults (very low quality evidence).Only one RCT (paediatric trial) provided data on mortality and found no difference between intervention and control. However, this trial was eligible for meta-analysis due to a cross-over design.We assessed the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin. One RCT found no difference in improvement of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (mean difference (MD) -25.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.48 to 9.78; P = 0.16; 67 participants, very low quality evidence).There were no adverse events such as bleeding or organ dysfunction in any of the included trials. Due to the limited number of RCTs, we were unable to perform the prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses or trial sequential analysis. We are unable to tell from our results whether the intervention has an important effect on mortality because the results were too imprecise to rule out a small or no effect. Therefore, no current evidence supports or refutes the routine use of aerosolized prostacyclin for people with ARDS. There is an urgent need for more RCTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 29 32%

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 05 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,272,903
of 15,381,025 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,882
of 11,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,059
of 270,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,381,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 270,590 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.