↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008901.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vidhu Thaker, Alexandra L Haagensen, Ben Carter, Zbys Fedorowicz, Brian W Houston

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition causing disease most noticeably in the lungs, digestive tract and pancreas. People with cystic fibrosis often have malnutrition and growth delay. Adequate nutritional supplementation does not improve growth optimally and hence an anabolic agent, recombinant growth hormone, has been proposed as a potential intervention. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of recombinant human growth hormone therapy in improving lung function, quality of life and clinical status of children and young adults with cystic fibrosis. 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. Date of latest search: 11 February 2015.We conducted a search of relevant endocrine journals and proceedings of the Endocrinology Society meetings using Scopus and Proceedings First. Date of latest search: 04 March 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of recombinant growth hormone compared to either no treatment, or placebo, or each other at any dose (high-dose and low-dose) or route and for any duration, in children or young adults aged up to 25 years diagnosed with cystic fibrosis (by sweat test or genetic testing). Two authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. Four controlled trials were included in this review (with 161 participants in total), each with an unclear risk of bias. Analysis of data obtained from these trials shows improvement in height for all comparisons, but improvements in weight and lean tissue mass were only reported in the comparison of standard dose recombinant growth hormone versus no treatment. One study showed moderate improvement at one time point in one parameter of pulmonary function tests, forced vital capacity (per cent predicted) when comparing standard dose recombinant growth hormone and no treatment, but there was no consistent benefit in lung function across all studies. Little evidence was found for improvement in quality of life. An improvement in fasting blood glucose levels was reported when comparing rhGH to placebo only. Exercise capacity improved in participants receiving standard dose recombinant growth hormone versus no treatment, but not for any other comparison. There is insufficient evidence to conclude any changes in hospitalisations, antibiotic use or significant adverse effects. Recombinant growth hormone therapy is effective in improving the intermediate outcomes in height, weight and lean tissue mass when compared with no treatment. One measure of pulmonary function test showed moderate improvement at a single time point, but no consistent benefit was seen across all studies. No significant changes in quality of life, clinical status or side-effects were observed in this review. Long-term, well-designed randomised controlled trials of recombinant growth hormone therapy in people with cystic fibrosis are required prior to evaluation of human growth hormone treatment for routine use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 33 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,554,579
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,867
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,254
of 232,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#205
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 232,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.