↓ Skip to main content

Use of macrolides in lung diseases: recent literature controversies

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

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, September 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 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 %
Other 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 2 7%
Lecturer 1 3%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 14 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,373,276
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#146
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,524
of 277,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 277,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.