↓ Skip to main content

Aromatase inhibitors for short stature in male children and adolescents

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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Aromatase inhibitors for short stature in male children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010888.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niamh McGrath, Michael J O'Grady

Abstract

As a result of the essential role of oestrogens in epiphyseal closure, aromatase inhibitors have been trialled as an intervention to improve height outcomes in male children and adolescents by inhibiting the conversion of testosterone to oestradiol. To assess the effects of aromatase inhibitors in male children and adolescents with short stature. To identify relevant trials, we searched the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP trial register from their inception until August 2014. In addition, we conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they compared use of an aromatase inhibitor with placebo in male children and adolescents with short stature. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Both authors carried out screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, with any disagreements resolved following discussion. We assessed trials for quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We contacted study authors regarding missing information. Primary outcomes were final or near-final height, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cognitive outcomes, socioeconomic effects, laboratory measures, short-term growth parameters, and assessment of effects on bone health. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the substantial clinical heterogeneity between trials; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. We included four RCTs involving 207 participants (84 on interventions) in the review. Trials included males with constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CDGP), idiopathic short stature (ISS), and growth hormone (GH) deficiency. Three of the trials had an overall low or unclear risk of bias for primary outcomes. Short-term growth outcomes, such as predicted adult height, improved in all trials. Just one trial reported the primary outcome of final and near-final height as an extension under non-randomised conditions. None of the trials assessed health-related quality of life. One publication provided detailed information regarding the incidence of adverse events. A significant proportion (45%) of prepubertal boys with ISS treated with letrozole developed mild morphological abnormalities of their vertebrae, compared with none in the placebo group. Available evidence suggested that aromatase inhibitors improved short-term growth outcomes. There was no evidence to support an increase in final adult height, based on limited data, with only one of four trials publishing final height data under non-randomised conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 25%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 19 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#827,628
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,905
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,417
of 249,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 249,879 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 63% of its contemporaries.