↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
433 Mendeley
Title
Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002768.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Radtke, Sarah J Nevitt, Helge Hebestreit, Susi Kriemler

Abstract

Physical exercise training may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effects of physical exercise training on exercise capacity by peak oxygen consumption, pulmonary function by forced expiratory volume in one second, health-related quality of life and further important patient-relevant outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 04 May 2017.We searched ongoing trials registers (clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP). Date of most recent search: 10 August 2017. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing exercise training of any type and a minimum duration of two weeks with conventional care (no training) in people with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Of the 83 studies identified, 15 studies which included 487 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The numbers in each study ranged from nine up to 72 participants; two studies were in adults, seven were in children and adolescents and six studies included all age ranges. Four studies of hospitalised participants lasted less than one month and 11 studies were outpatient-based, lasting between two months and three years. The studies included participants with a wide range of disease severity and employed differing levels of supervision with a mixture of types of training. There was also wide variation in the quality of the included studies.This systematic review shows very low- to low-quality evidence from both short- and long-term studies that in people with cystic fibrosis aerobic or anaerobic physical exercise training (or a combination of both) has a positive effect on aerobic exercise capacity, pulmonary function and health-related quality of life. No study reported on mortality; two studies reported on adverse events (moderate-quality evidence); one of each study reported on pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence) and diabetic control (very low-quality evidence). Although improvements were not consistent between studies and ranged from no effects to clearly positive effects, the most consistent effects of the heterogeneous exercise training modalities and durations were found for maximal aerobic exercise capacity (in four out of seven studies) with unclear effects on forced expiratory volume in one second (in two out of 11 studies) and health-related quality of life (in two out of seven studies). Evidence about the efficacy of physical exercise training in cystic fibrosis from 15 small studies with low to moderate methodological quality is limited. Exercise training is already part of regular outpatient care offered to most people with cystic fibrosis, and since there is some evidence for beneficial effects on aerobic fitness and no negative side effects exist, there is no reason to actively discourage this. The benefits from including physical exercise training in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the training programme. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of exercise programmes in people with cystic fibrosis and the relative benefits of the addition of aerobic versus anaerobic versus a combination of both types of physical exercise training to the care of people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 433 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 432 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 87 20%
Student > Master 65 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 9%
Researcher 31 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 6%
Other 64 15%
Unknown 120 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 94 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 18%
Sports and Recreations 32 7%
Social Sciences 20 5%
Psychology 18 4%
Other 46 11%
Unknown 144 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 23 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,124,789
of 18,708,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,825
of 11,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,141
of 332,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,708,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 332,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 68% of its contemporaries.