↓ Skip to main content

Oral steroids for long-term use in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Oral steroids for long-term use in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000407.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharine Cheng, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind L Smyth

Abstract

In cystic fibrosis (CF) airway obstruction and recurrent respiratory infection lead to inflammation, long-term lung damage, respiratory failure and death. Anti-inflammatory agents, e.g. oral corticosteroids are used since inflammation occurs early in disease. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effectiveness of oral corticosteroids in respiratory complications in CF, particularly lung function and adverse events. We examined long-term use (over 30 days) only. We searched the Cochrane CF and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 28 August 2015. Randomised trials comparing oral corticosteroids given for more than 30 days with placebo or no additional therapy in people with CF. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality. Of eleven studies identified, three (354 participants) were included: two with four-year follow up and one with 12-weeks follow up. Data were lacking on predefined outcomes; common outcomes were examined at different time-points and presented differently. Meta-analyses were not possible.In one study, oral corticosteroids at prednisolone-equivalent dose of 1 mg/kg alternate days slowed progression of lung disease; at two and four years, % predicted FEV1 in the 1 mg/kg group changed significantly more than in the placebo group (P < 0.02). During the first two years, the 2 mg/kg group was not significantly different from the placebo group. Linear growth retardation was observed from six months in the 2 mg/kg alternate days prednisolone group and from 24 months in the 1 mg/kg alternate days prednisolone group.Adverse events terminated one four-year study early. Year 10 follow up showed catch-up growth started two years after treatment ceased. Alternate-day treatment with oral corticosteroids may have impaired growth until adulthood in boys. Oral corticosteroids at prednisolone-equivalent dose of 1 to 2 mg/kg alternate days appear to slow progression of lung disease in CF; benefit should be weighed against occurrence of adverse events. Risk-benefit analysis of low-dose alternate days corticosteroids is important. No further trials of this intervention are anticipated, and hence the review will no longer be regularly updated. However, if any new data are published, these will be incorporate when available.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Other 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 14 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,009,630
of 12,724,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,253
of 10,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,141
of 350,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,724,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 350,401 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 217 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 56% of its contemporaries.