↓ Skip to main content

Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007862.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi A Mckoy, Lisa M Wilson, Ian J Saldanha, Olaide A Odelola, Karen A Robinson

Abstract

People with cystic fibrosis experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus build up within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (also known as ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review. To compare the clinical effectiveness of the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 25 April 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis. Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study. Our search identified 62 studies, of which 19 (440 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Five randomised controlled studies (192 participants) were included in the meta-analysis; three were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 22.33 years). In 13 studies, follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis.Included studies compared the active cycle of breathing technique with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, high frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy, and positive expiratory pressure. Preference of technique varied: more participants preferred autogenic drainage over the active cycle of breathing technique; more preferred the active cycle of breathing technique over airway oscillating devices; and more were comfortable with the active cycle of breathing technique versus high frequency chest compression. No significant difference was seen in quality of life, sputum weight, exercise tolerance, lung function, or oxygen saturation between the active cycle of breathing technique and autogenic drainage or between the active cycle of breathing technique and airway oscillating devices. There was no significant difference in lung function and the number of pulmonary exacerbations between the active cycle of breathing technique alone or in conjunction with conventional chest physiotherapy. All other outcomes were either not measured or had insufficient data for analysis. There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of the active cycle of breathing technique over any other airway clearance therapy. Five studies, with data from eight different comparators, found that the active cycle of breathing technique was comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of the active cycle of breathing technique on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 25%
Student > Bachelor 37 22%
Unspecified 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 27%
Unspecified 31 18%
Psychology 7 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 21 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,029,117
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,525
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,588
of 258,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 258,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.