↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for cough in cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Interventions for cough in cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007881.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molassiotis, Alex, Bailey, Chris, Caress, Ann, Tan, Jing-Yu

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 9, 2010 on "Interventions for cough in cancer". Cough is a common symptom in patients with malignancies, especially in patients with lung cancer. Cough is not well controlled in clinical practice and clinicians have few management options to treat it. The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, (other than chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy) in the management of cough in malignant disease (especially in lung cancer). For this update, we searched for relevant studies in CENTRAL and DARE (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; AMED and CINAHL to 9 June 2014. In addition, we searched for ongoing trials via the metaRegister of controlled trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials (quasi-experimental trials and trials where there is a comparison group but no mention of randomisation) in participants with primary or metastatic lung cancer or other cancers. Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all studies for inclusion, and extracted data from all included studies independently before reaching consensus. A third review author arbitrated on any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the heterogeneity of the studies. For the original version of the review, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and examined either brachytherapy, laser or photodynamic therapy (eight studies) or a variety of pharmacological therapies (nine studies). Overall, there was an absence of credible evidence and the majority of studies were of low methodological quality and at high risk of bias. Brachytherapy in a variety of doses seemed to improve cough in selected participants, suggesting that possibly the lowest effective dose should be used to minimise side effects. Photodynamic therapy was examined in one study and, while improvements in cough were observed, its role in relationship to other therapies for cough was unclear. Some indication of positive effect was observed with morphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, levodropropizine, sodium cromoglycate and butamirate citrate linctus (cough syrup), although all studies had significant risk of bias. For this update, we did not identify any additional trials for inclusion. Two ongoing trials were identified but no study results were available. No new trials were included since the publication of the original version of this review, while 11 new studies that were identified were eventually excluded from this review. Therefore, our conclusions remain unchanged. No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review. There is an urgent need to increase the number and quality of studies evaluating the effects of interventions for the management of cough in cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 16 16%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 28 28%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 42%
Unspecified 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 1 1%

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 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,486,608
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,760
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,945
of 229,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 229,846 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.