↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Topical pimecrolimus for eczema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
Topical pimecrolimus for eczema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005500.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren M Ashcroft, Li‐Chia Chen, Ruth Garside, Ken Stein, Hywel C Williams

Abstract

Pimecrolimus was developed as an alternative to topical corticosteroids for treating eczema (atopic dermatitis) but its efficacy and safety compared with existing treatments remains unclear. To assess the effects of topical pimecrolimus for treating eczema. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (to October 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (from 2003 to October 2006), and EMBASE (from 2005 to October 2006). We also contacted researchers and manufacturers in the field. Randomised controlled trials of 1.0% topical pimecrolimus used twice daily compared against other topical comparators for treating eczema. Two authors independently examined each retrieved study for eligibility and extracted data for efficacy, tolerability and safety. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We included 31 trials (8019 participants) in the analysis. In short-term (</= 6 weeks) trials, pimecrolimus cream was significantly more effective and well-tolerated than vehicle (cream base, but not containing pimecrolimus). In long-term trials (>/=6 months), pimecrolimus was significantly better than vehicle in preventing flares (9 trials, 3091 participants, RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.64 at six months) and in improving quality of life. Pimecrolimus was significantly less effective than two topical corticosteroids, i.e. 0.1% triamcinolone acetonide for investigators' global assessment (1 trial, 658 participants, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and 0.1% betamethasone valerate for participants' global assessment (1 trial, 87 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81) at three weeks. Pimecrolimus was also associated with significantly more overall withdrawals and skin burning. None of the trials reported on key adverse effects such as thinning of skin. Pimecrolimus was significantly less effective than 0.1% tacrolimus for investigators' global assessment at six weeks (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74) and led to more withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.08) based on two trials involving 639 participants, but there was no significant difference in proportions of participants experiencing any adverse events. Topical pimecrolimus is less effective than moderate and potent corticosteroids and 0.1% tacrolimus. The therapeutic role of topical pimecrolimus is uncertain due to the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 63 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 68 38%
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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,415
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,262
of 88,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 88,459 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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.