↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for cough in cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for cough in cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007881.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Molassiotis, Chris Bailey, Ann Caress, Jing-Yu Tan

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 9, 2010 on "Interventions for cough in cancer". Cough is a common symptom in patients with malignancies, especially in patients with lung cancer. Cough is not well controlled in clinical practice and clinicians have few management options to treat it. The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, (other than chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy) in the management of cough in malignant disease (especially in lung cancer). For this update, we searched for relevant studies in CENTRAL and DARE (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; AMED and CINAHL to 9 June 2014. In addition, we searched for ongoing trials via the metaRegister of controlled trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials (quasi-experimental trials and trials where there is a comparison group but no mention of randomisation) in participants with primary or metastatic lung cancer or other cancers. Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all studies for inclusion, and extracted data from all included studies independently before reaching consensus. A third review author arbitrated on any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the heterogeneity of the studies. For the original version of the review, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and examined either brachytherapy, laser or photodynamic therapy (eight studies) or a variety of pharmacological therapies (nine studies). Overall, there was an absence of credible evidence and the majority of studies were of low methodological quality and at high risk of bias. Brachytherapy in a variety of doses seemed to improve cough in selected participants, suggesting that possibly the lowest effective dose should be used to minimise side effects. Photodynamic therapy was examined in one study and, while improvements in cough were observed, its role in relationship to other therapies for cough was unclear. Some indication of positive effect was observed with morphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, levodropropizine, sodium cromoglycate and butamirate citrate linctus (cough syrup), although all studies had significant risk of bias. For this update, we did not identify any additional trials for inclusion. Two ongoing trials were identified but no study results were available. No new trials were included since the publication of the original version of this review, while 11 new studies that were identified were eventually excluded from this review. Therefore, our conclusions remain unchanged. No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review. There is an urgent need to increase the number and quality of studies evaluating the effects of interventions for the management of cough in cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 179 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Other 12 7%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 45 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 14%
Psychology 13 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 43 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#10,036,810
of 18,702,874 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,062
of 11,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,302
of 243,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#198
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,702,874 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 243,158 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.