↓ Skip to main content

Use of macrolides in lung diseases: recent literature controversies

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Use of macrolides in lung diseases: recent literature controversies
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2015.08.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luiz Vicente Ribeiro Ferreira da Silva Filho, Leonardo Araujo Pinto, Renato T. Stein

Abstract

To review the mechanisms of action of macrolides in pediatric respiratory diseases and their clinical indications. Review in the PubMed database, comprising the following terms in English: "macrolide and asthma"; "macrolide and cystic fibrosis"; "macrolide bronchiolitis and viral acute"; "macrolide and bronchiolitis obliterans" and "macrolide and non-CF bronchiectasis". The spectrum of action of macrolides includes production of inflammatory mediators, control of mucus hypersecretion, and modulation of host-defense mechanisms. The potential benefit of macrolide antibiotics has been studied in a variety of lung diseases, such as cystic fibrosis (CF), bronchiectasis, asthma, acute bronchiolitis, and non-CF bronchiectasis. Several studies have evaluated the benefits of macrolides in asthma refractory to therapy, but the results are controversial and indications should be limited to specific phenotypes. In viral bronchiolitis, there is no consistent benefit in acute conditions, although recent data have shown an effect in recurrent wheezing prevention. In patients with CF results are also contradictory, but the consensus states there is a small clinical benefit, especially for patients infected with P. aeruginosa. There was also no positive action of macrolides in patients with post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans. Children with non-CF bronchiectasis seem to have clear benefits regarding the use of macrolides, which showed clinical advantages in parenchyma protection and lung function. The long-term use of macrolides should be limited to highly selected situations, especially in patients with bronchiectasis. Careful evaluation of the benefits and potential damage are tools for their indication in specific groups.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Lecturer 1 3%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 17 57%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 60%

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 17 April 2016.
All research outputs
#9,466,446
of 16,109,166 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#247
of 638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,462
of 243,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,109,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 638 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 243,078 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.