↓ Skip to main content

Immunosuppressive drug therapy for preventing rejection following lung transplantation in cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Immunosuppressive drug therapy for preventing rejection following lung transplantation in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009421.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian J Saldanha, Oluwaseun Akinyede, Karen A Robinson

Abstract

For people with cystic fibrosis and advanced pulmonary damage, lung transplantation is an available and viable option. However, graft rejection is an important potential consequence after lung transplantation. Immunosuppressive therapy is needed to prevent episodes of graft rejection and thus subsequently reduce morbidity and mortality in this population. There are a number of classes of immunosuppressive drugs which act on different components of the immune system. There is considerable variability in the use of immunosuppressive agents after lung transplantation in cystic fibrosis. While much of the research in immunosuppressive drug therapy has focused on the general population of lung transplant recipients, little is known about the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effects of individual drugs or combinations of drugs compared to placebo or other individual drugs or combinations of drugs in preventing rejection following lung transplantation in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register and scanned references of the potentially eligible study. We also searched the www.clinicaltrials.gov registry and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to obtain information on unpublished and ongoing studies.Date of latest search: 29 May 2018. Randomised and quasi-randomised studies. We independently assessed the studies identified from our searches for inclusion in the review. Should eligible studies be identified and included in future updates of the review, we will independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will use GRADE to summarize our results through a summary of findings table for each comparison we present in the review. While five studies addressed the interventions of interest, we did not include them in the review because the investigators of the studies did not report any information specific to people with cystic fibrosis. Our attempts to obtain this information have not yet been successful. We will include any provided data in future updates of the review. The lack of currently available evidence makes it impossible to draw conclusions about the comparative efficacy and safety of the various immunosuppressive drugs among people with cystic fibrosis after lung transplantation. A 2013 Cochrane Review comparing tacrolimus with cyclosporine in all lung transplant recipients (not restricted to those with cystic fibrosis) reported no significant difference in mortality and risk of acute rejection. However, tacrolimus use was associated with lower risk of broncholitis obliterans syndrome and arterial hypertension and higher risk of diabetes mellitus. It should be noted that this wider review contained only a small number of included studies (n = 3) with a high risk of bias. Additional randomised studies are required to provide evidence for the benefit and safety of the use of immunosuppressive therapy among people with cystic fibrosis after lung transplantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Master 22 13%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 8 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 68 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 75 43%
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 22 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,595,994
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,085
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,162
of 341,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#153
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 341,808 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.