↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
79 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the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to obtain information on unpublished and ongoing studies.Date of latest search: 29 May 2018.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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 23%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Unspecified 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 18 23%

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
#6,691,657
of 13,260,816 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,647
of 10,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,414
of 267,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#149
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,260,816 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 10,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. 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 267,811 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 59% 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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.