↓ Skip to main content

Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis-related liver disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 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
Ursodeoxycholic acid for cystic fibrosis-related liver disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000222.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

Abstract

Abnormal biliary secretion leads to the thickening of bile and the formation of plugs within the bile ducts; the consequent obstruction and abnormal bile flow ultimately results in the development of cystic fibrosis-related liver disease. This condition peaks in adolescence with up to 20% of adolescents with cystic fibrosis developing chronic liver disease. Early changes in the liver may ultimately result in end-stage liver disease with people needing transplantation. One therapeutic option currently used is ursodeoxycholic acid. This is an update of a previous review. To analyse evidence that ursodeoxycholic acid improves indices of liver function, reduces the risk of developing chronic liver disease and improves outcomes in general in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane CF and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also contacted drug companies and searched online trial registries.Date of the most recent search of the Group's trials register: 09 April 2017. Randomised controlled trials of the use of ursodeoxycholic acid for at least three months compared with placebo or no additional treatment in people with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality. The authors used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. Twelve trials have been identified, of which four trials involving 137 participants were included; data were only available from three of the trials (118 participants) since one cross-over trial did not report appropriate data. The dose of ursodeoxycholic acid ranged from 10 to 20 mg/kg/day for up to 12 months. The complex design used in two trials meant that data could only be analysed for subsets of participants. There was no significant difference in weight change, mean difference -0.90 kg (95% confidence interval -1.94 to 0.14) based on 30 participants from two trials. Improvement in biliary excretion was reported in only one trial and no significant change after treatment was shown. There were no data available for analysis for long-term outcomes such as death or need for liver transplantation. There are few trials assessing the effectiveness of ursodeoxycholic acid. The quality of the evidence identified ranged from low to very low. There is currently insufficient evidence to justify its routine use in cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 14 15%
Student > Master 14 15%
Other 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,549,775
of 15,149,790 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,005
of 11,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,397
of 272,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,149,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 272,720 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.