↓ Skip to main content

Palliative drug treatments for breathlessness in cystic fibrosis

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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Palliative drug treatments for breathlessness in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011855.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nishant Jaiswal, Meenu Singh, Amit Agarwal, Kiran K Thumburu

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting autosomal recessive genetic illness. A feeling of shortness of breath is common in cystic fibrosis, especially as the disease progresses. Reversing the underlying cause is the priority when treating breathlessness (dyspnoea), but when it is not feasible, palliation (easing) becomes the primary goal to improve an individual's quality of life. A range of drugs administered by various routes have been used, but no definite guidelines are available. A systematic review is needed to evaluate such treatments. To assess the efficacy and safety of drugs used to ease breathlessness in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search: 24 July 2017.We searched databases (clinicaltrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, the Clinical Trials Registry India and WHO ICTRP) for ongoing trials. These searches were last run on 31 July 2017. We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis (diagnosed by a positive sweat chloride test or genetic testing) who have breathlessness. We considered studies comparing any drugs used for easing breathlessness to another drug administered by any route (inhaled (nebulised), intravenous, oral, subcutaneous, transmucosal (including buccal, sublingual and intra-nasal) and transdermal). The authors assessed the search results according to the pre-defined inclusion criteria. The search yielded only one study (cross-over in design), which did not fulfil the inclusion criteria as no data were available from the first treatment period alone. Due to the lack of available evidence, this review cannot provide any information for clinical practice. The authors call for specific research in this area after taking into account relevant ethical considerations. The research should focus on the efficacy and safety of the drugs with efficacy being measured in terms of improvement in quality of life, dyspnoea scores and hospital stay.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 12 27%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Unspecified 14 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 1 2%

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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,373,824
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,253
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,752
of 266,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 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 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 266,050 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.