↓ Skip to main content

Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003782.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew N Davies, Jo Thompson

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review on parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy (published in Issue 3, 2007). Salivary gland dysfunction is a predictable side effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck region. Pilocarpine hydrochloride (a choline ester) is licensed in many countries for the treatment of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction. Other parasympathomimetics have also been used 'off licence' in the treatment of this condition. To determine the efficacy and tolerability of parasympathomimetic drugs in the treatment of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction (specifically radiation-induced xerostomia). For this update, we ran searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL in July 2015. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies, contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies for unpublished and ongoing trials. The selection criteria for the review were: 1) randomised controlled trials; 2) people suffering from radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction; 3) people treated with parasympathomimetic drugs; and 4) assessable data available on primary outcome measure. The two review authors independently collected data from the full-text version of relevant papers including: 1) citation details; 2) participants; 3) interventions; 4) assessments; 5) outcomes (that is efficacy, tolerability); and 6) quality issues.Due to a lack of appropriate data, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. In the original review, three studies, including a total of 298 participants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All three studies involved the use of pilocarpine hydrochloride. We have included no additional studies in the update of the review; we have excluded eight additional studies.The data suggest that pilocarpine hydrochloride is more effective than placebo and at least as effective as artificial saliva. The response rate was 42% to 51%. The time to response was up to 12 weeks. The overall side effect rate was high, and side effects were the main reason for withdrawal (6% to 15% of participants taking 5 mg three times a day had to withdraw). The side effects were usually the result of generalised parasympathomimetic stimulation (for example sweating, headaches, urinary frequency, vasodilatation). Response rates were not dose dependent, but side effect rates were dose dependent. There is limited evidence to support the use of pilocarpine hydrochloride in the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia. Currently, there is little evidence to support the use of other parasympathomimetic drugs in the treatment of radiation-induced xerostomia. Available studies suggest that approximately half of patients will respond, but side effects can be problematic. The conclusions of the update are the same as the conclusions of the original review, since no new relevant studies have been published in the interim.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
France 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 78 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Unspecified 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 21 25%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 55%
Unspecified 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 13 October 2018.
All research outputs
#904,662
of 13,617,860 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,788
of 10,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,743
of 250,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,617,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 250,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.