↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nebulized and oral thiol derivatives for pulmonary disease in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Nebulized and oral thiol derivatives for pulmonary disease in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007168.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Tam, Edward F Nash, Felix Ratjen, Elizabeth Tullis, Anne Stephenson

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition resulting in thickened, sticky respiratory secretions. Respiratory failure, due to recurrent pulmonary infection and inflammation, is the most common cause of mortality. Muco-active therapies (e.g. dornase alfa and nebulized hypertonic saline) may decrease sputum viscosity, increase airway clearance of sputum, reduce infection and inflammation and improve lung function. Thiol derivatives, either oral or nebulized, have shown benefit in other respiratory diseases. Their mode of action is likely to differ according to the route of administration. There are several thiol derivatives, and it is unclear which of these may be beneficial in cystic fibrosis.

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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 17 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,110,812
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,477
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,610
of 159,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 100 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 83rd 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 159,640 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.