↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cough augmentation techniques for people with chronic neuromuscular disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2021
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Cough augmentation techniques for people with chronic neuromuscular disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013170.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenda Morrow, Andrew Argent, Marco Zampoli, Anri Human, Lieselotte Corten, Michel Toussaint

Abstract

People with neuromuscular disorders may have a weak, ineffective cough predisposing them to respiratory complications. Cough augmentation techniques aim to improve cough effectiveness and mucous clearance, reduce the frequency and duration of respiratory infections requiring hospital admission, and improve quality of life. To determine the efficacy and safety of cough augmentation techniques in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders. On 13 April 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and randomised cross-over trials. We included trials of cough augmentation techniques compared to no treatment, alternative techniques, or combinations thereof, in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were the number and duration of unscheduled hospitalisations for acute respiratory exacerbations. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The review included 11 studies involving 287 adults and children, aged three to 73 years. Inadequately reported cross-over studies and the limited additional information provided by authors severely restricted the number of analyses that could be performed. Studies compared manually assisted cough, mechanical insufflation, manual and mechanical breathstacking, mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, glossopharyngeal breathing, and combination techniques to unassisted cough and alternative or sham interventions. None of the included studies reported on the primary outcomes of this review (number and duration of unscheduled hospital admissions) or listed 'adverse events' as primary or secondary outcome measures. The evidence suggests that a range of cough augmentation techniques may increase peak cough flow compared to unassisted cough (199 participants, 8 RCTs), but the evidence is very uncertain. There may be little to no difference in peak cough flow outcomes between alternative cough augmentation techniques (216 participants, 9 RCTs). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of interventions on measures of gaseous exchange, pulmonary function, quality of life, general function, or participant preference and satisfaction. We are very uncertain about the safety and efficacy of cough augmentation techniques in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders and further studies are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 21%
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Sports and Recreations 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,871,673
of 18,081,658 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,428
of 11,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,981
of 323,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,081,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 323,922 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.