↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Drug therapies for reducing gastric acidity in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

6 X users


9 Dimensions

Readers on

142 Mendeley
Drug therapies for reducing gastric acidity in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003424.pub5
Pubmed ID

Sze May Ng, Helen S Moore


Malabsorption of fat and protein contributes to poor nutritional status in people with cystic fibrosis. Impaired pancreatic function may also result in increased gastric acidity, leading in turn to heartburn, peptic ulcers and the impairment of oral pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. The administration of gastric acid-reducing agents has been used as an adjunct to pancreatic enzyme therapy to improve absorption of fat and gastro-intestinal symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis. It is important to establish the evidence regarding potential benefits of drugs that reduce gastric acidity in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effect of drug therapies for reducing gastric acidity for: nutritional status; symptoms associated with increased gastric acidity; fat absorption; lung function; quality of life and survival; and to determine if any adverse effects are associated with their use. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic and non-electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals,  abstract books and conference proceedings. Both authors double checked the reference lists of the searches Most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 26 April 2021. On the 26 April 2021 further searches were conducted on the clinicaltrials.gov register to identify any ongoing trials that may be of relevance. The WHO ICTRP database was last searched in 2020 and is not currently available for searching due to the Covid-19 pandemic. All randomised and quasi-randomised trials involving agents that reduce gastric acidity compared to placebo or a comparator treatment. Both authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The searches identified 40 trials; 17 of these, with 273 participants, were suitable for inclusion, but the number of trials assessing each of the different agents was small. Seven trials were limited to children and four trials enrolled only adults. Meta-analysis was not performed, 14 trials were of a cross-over design and we did not have the appropriate information to conduct comprehensive meta-analyses. All the trials were run in single centres and duration ranged from five days to six months. The included trials were generally not reported adequately enough to allow judgements on risk of bias. However, one trial found that drug therapies that reduce gastric acidity improved gastro-intestinal symptoms such as abdominal pain; seven trials reported significant improvement in measures of fat malabsorption; and two trials reported no significant improvement in nutritional status. Only one trial reported measures of respiratory function and one trial reported an adverse effect with prostaglandin E2 analogue misoprostol. No trials have been identified assessing the effectiveness of these agents in improving quality of life, the complications of increased gastric acidity, or survival. Trials have shown limited evidence that agents that reduce gastric acidity are associated with improvement in gastro-intestinal symptoms and fat absorption. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether there is an improvement in nutritional status, lung function, quality of life, or survival. Furthermore, due to the unclear risks of bias in the included trials, we are unable to make firm conclusions based on the evidence reported therein. We therefore recommend that large, multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trials are undertaken to evaluate these interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Librarian 9 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 61 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 67 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 454,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 454,220 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.