↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin K supplementation for 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Vitamin K supplementation for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008482.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanitha A Jagannath, Vidhu Thaker, Anne B Chang, Amy I Price

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder which can lead to multiorgan dysfunction. Malabsorption of fat and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) may occur and can cause subclinical deficiencies of some of these vitamins. Vitamin K is known to play an important role in both blood coagulation and bone formation. Supplementation with vitamin K appears to be one way of addressing the deficiency, but there is very limited agreement on the appropriate dose and frequency of use of these supplements. This is an updated version of the review. To assess the effects of vitamin K supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis and to determine the optimal dose and route of administration of vitamin K for both routine and therapeutic use. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 30 January 2017. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of vitamin K used as a supplement compared to either no supplementation (or placebo) at any dose or route and for any duration, in children or adults diagnosed with cystic fibrosis (by sweat test or genetic testing). Two authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. Two trials (total of 32 participants) each lasting one month were included in the review and were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias. One was a dose-ranging parallel group trial in children (aged 8 to 18 years); and the other (with an older cohort) had a cross-over design comparing supplements to no treatment, but no separate data were reported for the first intervention period. Neither of the trials addressed any of the primary outcomes (coagulation, bone formation and quality of life). Both trials reported the restoration of serum vitamin K and undercarboxylated osteocalcin levels to the normal range after one month of daily supplementation with 1 mg of vitamin K. Evidence from randomised controlled trials on the benefits of routine vitamin K supplementation for people with CF is currently weak and limited to two small trials of short duration. However, no harm was found and until further evidence is available, the present recommendations should be adhered to.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 22%
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Librarian 8 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,080,250
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,342
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,606
of 266,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 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 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 266,476 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 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 58% of its contemporaries.