↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cyclosporin as an oral corticosteroid sparing agent in stable asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Cyclosporin as an oral corticosteroid sparing agent in stable asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002993
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Evans, Paul Cullinan, Duncan M Geddes, E. Haydn Walters, Stephen J Milan, Paul Jones

Abstract

Patients with chronic severe asthma are often dependent on the long term prescription of oral corticosteroids. The use of steroids is associated with serious side effects. Physicians treating such patients continue to search for alternative therapies that reduce the need for chronic dosing with oral steroids. Cyclosporin is an immunosuppressive agent and has benefits in the treatment of a number of inflammatory disorders. It has therefore been identified as an potentially useful agent in the treatment of chronic severe asthma both in terms of possible efficacy and as a steroid sparing agent. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of adding cyclosporin to oral steroids in the treatment of chronic steroid dependent asthmatics. The Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of identified articles were searched. Randomised trials looking at the addition of cyclosporin compared to placebo in adult steroid dependent asthmatics. Trial quality was assessed and data extraction was carried out by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Three trials fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the review and a total of 106 patients were recruited into these studies. Data from 98 patients could be analysed. There was a small but significant treatment effect for cyclosporin in terms of steroid dose reduction (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -1.0, -0.04). No meta-analyses could be performed for measures of lung function although one study showed small, but significant improvements in lung spirometry. The changes with cyclosporin are small and of questionable clinical significance. Given the side effects of cyclosporin, the evidence available does not recommend routine use of this drug in the treatment of oral corticosteroid dependent asthma.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Librarian 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 41 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 42 54%

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 13 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,557,046
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,020
of 12,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,862
of 39,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 39,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.