↓ Skip to main content

Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

17 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


70 Dimensions

Readers on

403 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.
Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002768.pub4
Pubmed ID

Thomas Radtke, Sarah J Nevitt, Helge Hebestreit, Susi Kriemler


Physical exercise training may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effects of physical exercise training on exercise capacity by peak oxygen consumption, pulmonary function by forced expiratory volume in one second, health-related quality of life and further important patient-relevant outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 04 May 2017.We searched ongoing trials registers (clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP). Date of most recent search: 10 August 2017. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing exercise training of any type and a minimum duration of two weeks with conventional care (no training) in people with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Of the 83 studies identified, 15 studies which included 487 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The numbers in each study ranged from nine up to 72 participants; two studies were in adults, seven were in children and adolescents and six studies included all age ranges. Four studies of hospitalised participants lasted less than one month and 11 studies were outpatient-based, lasting between two months and three years. The studies included participants with a wide range of disease severity and employed differing levels of supervision with a mixture of types of training. There was also wide variation in the quality of the included studies.This systematic review shows very low- to low-quality evidence from both short- and long-term studies that in people with cystic fibrosis aerobic or anaerobic physical exercise training (or a combination of both) has a positive effect on aerobic exercise capacity, pulmonary function and health-related quality of life. No study reported on mortality; two studies reported on adverse events (moderate-quality evidence); one of each study reported on pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence) and diabetic control (very low-quality evidence). Although improvements were not consistent between studies and ranged from no effects to clearly positive effects, the most consistent effects of the heterogeneous exercise training modalities and durations were found for maximal aerobic exercise capacity (in four out of seven studies) with unclear effects on forced expiratory volume in one second (in two out of 11 studies) and health-related quality of life (in two out of seven studies). Evidence about the efficacy of physical exercise training in cystic fibrosis from 15 small studies with low to moderate methodological quality is limited. Exercise training is already part of regular outpatient care offered to most people with cystic fibrosis, and since there is some evidence for beneficial effects on aerobic fitness and no negative side effects exist, there is no reason to actively discourage this. The benefits from including physical exercise training in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the training programme. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of exercise programmes in people with cystic fibrosis and the relative benefits of the addition of aerobic versus anaerobic versus a combination of both types of physical exercise training to the care of people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 403 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 402 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 82 20%
Student > Master 64 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 9%
Researcher 28 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 65 16%
Unknown 102 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 93 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 74 18%
Sports and Recreations 31 8%
Social Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 16 4%
Other 45 11%
Unknown 126 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 19 July 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,465,366 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 322,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,465,366 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 11,195 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 67% 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 322,111 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 253 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 60% of its contemporaries.