↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Singing for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
68 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
Title
Singing for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012296.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renae J McNamara, Charlotte Epsley, Esther Coren, Zoe J McKeough

Abstract

Singing is a complex physical activity dependent on the use of the lungs for air supply to regulate airflow and create large lung volumes. In singing, exhalation is active and requires active diaphragm contraction and good posture. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, chronic lung disease characterised by airflow obstruction. Singing is an activity with potential to improve health outcomes in people with COPD. To determine the effect of singing on health-related quality of life and dyspnoea in people with COPD. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization trials portal and PEDro, from their inception to August 2017. We also reviewed reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We included randomised controlled trials in people with stable COPD, in which structured supervised singing training of at least four sessions over four weeks' total duration was performed. The singing could be performed individually or as part of a group (choir) facilitated by a singing leader. Studies were included if they compared: 1) singing versus no intervention (usual care) or another control intervention; or 2) singing plus pulmonary rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation alone. Two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors of trials for missing data. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We were only able to analyse data for the comparison of singing versus no intervention or a control group. Three studies (a total of 112 participants) were included. All studies randomised participants to a singing group or a control group. The comparison groups included a film workshop, handcraft work, and no intervention. The frequency of the singing intervention in the studies ranged from 1 to 2 times a week over a 6 to 24 week period. The duration of each singing session was 60 minutes.All studies included participants diagnosed with COPD with a mean age ranging from 67 to 72 years and a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranging from 37% to 64% of predicted values. The sample size of included studies was small (33 to 43 participants) and overall study quality was low to very low. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible due to the physical nature of the intervention, and selection and reporting bias was present in two studies.For the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, there was no statistically significant improvement in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (mean difference (MD) -0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.67 to 3.02, 2 studies, n = 58, low-quality evidence). However, there was a statistically significant improvement in the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score favouring the singing group (MD 12.64, 95% CI 5.50 to 19.77, 2 studies, n = 52, low-quality evidence). Only one study reported results for the other primary outcome of dyspnoea, in which the mean improvement in Baseline Dyspnoea Index (BDI) score favouring the singing group was not statistically significant (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.45, 1 study, n = 30, very low-quality evidence).No studies examined any long-term outcomes and no adverse events or side effects were reported. There is low to very low-quality evidence that singing is safe for people with COPD and improves physical health (as measured by the SF-36 physical component score), but not dyspnoea or respiratory-specific quality of life. The evidence is limited due to the low number of studies and the small sample size of each study. No evidence exists examining the long-term effect of singing for people with COPD. The absence of studies examining singing performed in conjunction with pulmonary rehabilitation precludes the formulation of conclusions about the effects of singing in this context. More randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and trials examining the effect of singing in addition to pulmonary rehabilitation, are required to determine the effect of singing on health-related quality of life and dyspnoea in people with COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 18%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Researcher 14 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 74 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 17%
Psychology 13 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Arts and Humanities 6 3%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 85 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 25 June 2021.
All research outputs
#531,232
of 20,421,224 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,124
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,025
of 435,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,421,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 435,183 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.