↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled non-steroid anti-inflammatories for children and adults with bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Inhaled non-steroid anti-inflammatories for children and adults with bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007525.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan J Pizzutto, John W Upham, Stephanie T Yerkovich, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Chronic neutrophilic inflammation, in both the presence and absence of infection, is a feature of bronchiectasis in adults and children. The anti-inflammatory properties of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be beneficial in reducing airway inflammation, thus potentially improving lung function and quality of life in patients with bronchiectasis. To evaluate the efficacy of inhaled NSAIDs in the management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adults:• during stable bronchiectasis; and• for reduction of:∘ severity and frequency of acute respiratory exacerbations; and∘ long-term pulmonary decline. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register, which includes reports identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trial portal. We carried out the latest searches on 22 September 2015. All randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled NSAIDs versus a control (placebo or usual treatment) in children or adults with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis. We reviewed the results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. One small, short-term trial was eligible for inclusion. We included this study of 25 adults with chronic lung disease (only 32% of people included in the trial had bronchiectasis), as the other conditions were linked to development of bronchiectasis, and all were characterised by chronic sputum production. We were not able to obtain separate data for people with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis. We judged that the study was at a high risk of selection bias.The primary outcome (mean difference in control of bronchiectasis severity, quality of life (Qol), cough scores) was not reported in the included study. The single trial in adults reported a significant reduction in sputum production over 14 days for the treatment group (inhaled indomethacin) compared with the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -75.00 g/day; 95% confidence interval (CI) -134.61 to -15.39) and a significant improvement in the Borg Dyspnoea Scale score (MD -1.90, 95% CI -3.15 to -0.65). We noted no significant differences between groups in lung function or blood indices and no reported adverse events. No new studies of adults or children have been conducted since the last version of this review was published. Therefore, final conclusions have not changed. Current evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of inhaled NSAIDs for the management of bronchiectasis in adults or children. One small trial reported a reduction in sputum production and improved dyspnoea among adults with chronic lung disease who were treated with inhaled indomethacin, indicating that additional studies on the efficacy of NSAIDs for treatment of patients with bronchiectasis are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Unspecified 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 16 21%

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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,747,674
of 12,818,197 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,285
of 10,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,470
of 333,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,818,197 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,510 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.