↓ Skip to main content

Systemic corticosteroids in acute exacerbation of COPD: a meta-analysis of controlled studies with emphasis on ICU patients

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Systemic corticosteroids in acute exacerbation of COPD: a meta-analysis of controlled studies with emphasis on ICU patients
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13613-014-0032-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fekri Abroug, Islem Ouanes, Sarra Abroug, Fahmi Dachraoui, Saoussen Ben Abdallah, Zeineb Hammouda, Lamia Ouanes-Besbes

Abstract

Guidelines on systemic corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation rely on studies that excluded patients requiring ventilatory support. Recent publication of studies including ICU patients allows estimation of the level of evidence overall and in patients admitted to the ICU. We included RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbation, compared to placebo or standard treatment. The effect size on treatment success was computed by a random effects model overall and in subgroups of non-ICU and ICU patients. Effects on mortality and on the rate of adverse effects of corticosteroids were also computed. Twelve RCTs (including 1,331 patients) were included. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant increase in the treatment success rate when using systemic corticosteroids: odds ratio (OR) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15 to 2.57; p = 0.01. Subgroup analysis showed different patterns of effect in ICU and non-ICU subpopulations: a non-significant difference of effect in the subgroup of ICU patients (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.61 to 2.95; p = 0.46), whereas in the non-ICU patients, the effect was significant (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.99; p = 0.01; p for interaction = 0.72). Among ICU patients, there was no difference in the success whether patients were ventilated with tracheal intubation (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 0.14 to 23.34; p = 0.63) or with non-invasive ventilation (OR = 4.88, 95% CI = 0.31 to 75.81; p = 0.25). Overall, there was no difference in the mortality rate between the steroid-treated group and controls: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.71; p = 0.77. The rate of adverse events increased significantly with corticosteroid administration (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.67 to 3.33; p < 0.0001). In particular, treatment with systemic corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of hyperglycemic episodes requiring initiation or alteration of insulin therapy (OR = 2.96, 95% CI = 1.69 to 5; p < 0.0001). We found corticosteroids to be beneficial in the whole population (non-critically ill and critically ill patients) in terms of treatment success rate. However, subgroup analysis showed that this effect of corticosteroids was only observed in non-critically ill patients whereas critically ill patients derived no benefit from systemic corticosteroids regardless of the chosen ventilatory mode (invasive or non-invasive ventilation). Further analyses showed no effect on mortality of corticosteroids, but higher side effects, such as hyperglycemic episodes requiring the initiation or alteration of insulin therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 18%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 60%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,447,530
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#635
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,224
of 260,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 260,259 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.