↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008901.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vidhu Thaker, Ben Carter, Melissa Putman

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited condition causing disease most noticeably in the lungs, digestive tract and pancreas. People with CF often have malnutrition and growth delay. Adequate nutritional supplementation does not improve growth optimally and hence an anabolic agent, recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH), has been proposed as a potential intervention. This is an update of a previously published review. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rhGH therapy in improving lung function, quality of life and clinical status of children and young adults with CF. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of latest search: 12 January 2021. We also searched ongoing trials registers: clinicaltrials.gov from the United States - date of latest search 19 Jun 2021; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) - date of latest search 05 March 2018 (not available in 2021).  We conducted a search of relevant endocrine journals and proceedings of the Endocrinology Society meetings using Web of Science, Scopus and Proceedings First. Date of latest search: 21 Jun 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of rhGH compared to either no treatment, or placebo, or each other at any dose (high-dose and low-dose) or route and for any duration, in children or young adults (aged up to 25 years) diagnosed with CF (by sweat test or genetic testing). Two authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. We included eight trials (291 participants, aged between five and 23 years) in the current version of the review. Seven trials compared standard-dose rhGH (approximately 0.3 mg/kg/week) to no treatment and one three-arm trial (63 participants) compared placebo, standard-dose rhGH (0.3 mg/kg/week) and high-dose rhGH (0.5 mg/kg/week). Six trials lasted for one year and two trials for six months. We found that rhGH treatment may improve some of the pulmonary function outcomes, but there was no difference between standard and high-dose levels (low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency across the trials, small number of participants and short duration of therapy). The trials show evidence of improvement in the anthropometric parameters (height, weight and lean body mass) with rhGH therapy, again no differences between dose levels. We found improvement in height for all comparisons (very low- to low-certainty evidence), but improvements in weight and lean body mass were only reported for standard-dose rhGH versus no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence indicating a change in the level of fasting blood glucose with rhGH therapy, however, it did not cross the clinical threshold for diagnosis of diabetes in the trials of short duration (low-certainty evidence). There is low- to very low-certainty evidence for improvement of pulmonary exacerbations with no further significant adverse effects, but this is limited by the short duration of trials and the small number of participants. One small trial provided inconsistent evidence on improvement in quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). There is limited evidence from three trials in improvements in exercise capacity (low-certainty evidence). None of the trials have systematically compared the expense of therapy on overall healthcare costs. When compared with no treatment, rhGH therapy is effective in improving the intermediate outcomes in height, weight and lean body mass. Some measures of pulmonary function showed moderate improvement, but no consistent benefit was seen across all trials. The significant change in blood glucose levels, although not causing diabetes, emphasizes the need for careful monitoring of this adverse effect with therapy in a population predisposed to CF-related diabetes. No significant changes in quality of life, clinical status or side-effects were observed in this review due to the small number of participants. Long-term, well-designed randomised controlled trials of rhGH in individuals with CF are required prior to routine clinical use of rhGH in CF.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 26 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 29 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 September 2021.
All research outputs
#12,133,470
of 19,097,846 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,148
of 11,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,929
of 309,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,097,846 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 309,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.