↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for preventing distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

6 tweeters


7 Dimensions

Readers on

150 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.
Interventions for preventing distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012619.pub2
Pubmed ID

Jessica Green, Francis J Gilchrist, Will Carroll


Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, life-limiting, genetically inherited disease. It affects multiple organs, particularly the respiratory system. However, gastrointestinal problems such as constipation and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) are also important and well-recognised complications in CF. They share similar symptoms e.g. bloating, abdominal pain, but are distinct conditions. Constipation occurs when there is gradual faecal impaction of the colon, but DIOS occurs when there is an accumulation of faeces and sticky mucus, forming a mass in the distal part of the small intestine. The mass may partially block the intestine (incomplete DIOS) or completely block the intestine (complete DIOS). Symptoms of DIOS can affect quality of life and other aspects of CF health, such as airway clearance, exercise, sleep and nutritional status. Treatment of constipation and prevention of complete bowel obstruction are required for gastrointestinal management in CF. However, many different strategies are used in clinical practice and there is a lack of consensus. The importance of this topic was highlighted in a recent research priority setting exercise by the James Lind Alliance. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of laxative agents of differing types for preventing DIOS (complete and incomplete) in children and adults with CF. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of search: 22 May 2018.We also searched online trial registries. Date of last search: 10 June 2018. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled parallel trials comparing laxative therapy for preventing DIOS (including osmotic agents, stimulants, mucolytics and substances with more than one action) at any dose to placebo, no treatment or an alternative laxative therapy, in people of any age with pancreatic sufficient or insufficient CF and any stage of lung disease. Randomised cross-over trials were judged on an individual basis. Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and performed a risk of bias assessment for the included data. We judged the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We included one cross-over trial (17 participants) with a duration of 12 months, in which participants were randomly allocated to either cisapride (a gastro-prokinetic agent) or placebo for six months each. The trial had an unclear risk of bias for most domains but had a high risk of reporting bias.Radiograph scores revealed no difference in occurrence of DIOS between cisapride and placebo (narrative report, no data provided). There were no adverse effects. Symptom scores were the only secondary outcome within the review that were reported. Total gastrointestinal symptom scores favoured cisapride with a statistically significant mean difference (MD) of -7.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) -14.73 to -0.47). There was no significant difference at six months between cisapride and placebo for abdominal distension, MD -0.90 (95% CI -2.39 to 0.59) or abdominal pain, MD -0.4 (95% CI -2.05 to 1.25). The global symptom scores (whether individuals felt better or worse) were reported in the paper to favour cisapride and be statistically significant (P < 0.05).We assessed the available data to be very low quality. There was a great deal of missing data from the included trial and the investigators failed to report numerical data for many outcomes. The overall risk of bias of the trial was unclear and it had a high risk for reporting bias. There was also indirectness; the trial drug (cisapride) has since been removed from the market in several countries due to adverse effects, thus it has no current applicability for preventing DIOS. The included trial also had very few participants, which downgraded the quality a further level for precision. There is an absence of evidence for interventions for the prevention of DIOS. As there was only one included trial, we could not perform a meta-analysis of the data. Furthermore, the included trial compared a prokinetic agent (cisapride) that is no longer licensed for use in a number of countries due to the risk of serious cardiac events, a finding that came to light after the trial was conducted. Therefore, the limited findings from the trial are not applicable in current clinical practice.Overall, a great deal more research needs to be undertaken on gastrointestinal complications in CF, as this is a very poorly studied area compared to respiratory complications in CF.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 20%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 39 26%

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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,133,585 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 269,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,133,585 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 269,973 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.