↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Inhaled corticosteroids for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled corticosteroids for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000996.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nitin Kapur, Helen L Petsky, Scott Bell, John Kolbe, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Bronchiectasis is being increasingly diagnosed and recognised as an important contributor to chronic lung disease in both adults and children in high- and low-income countries. It is characterised by irreversible dilatation of airways and is generally associated with airway inflammation and chronic bacterial infection. Medical management largely aims to reduce morbidity by controlling the symptoms, reduce exacerbation frequency, improve quality of life and prevent the progression of bronchiectasis. This is an update of a review first published in 2000. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adults with stable state bronchiectasis, specifically to assess whether the use of ICS: (1) reduces the severity and frequency of acute respiratory exacerbations; or (2) affects long-term pulmonary function decline. We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, MEDLINE and Embase databases. We ran the latest literature search in June 2017. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICS with a placebo or no medication. We included children and adults with clinical or radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis, but excluded people with cystic fibrosis. We reviewed search results against predetermined criteria for inclusion. In this update, two independent review authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro forma. We analysed treatment as 'treatment received' and performed sensitivity analyses. The review included seven studies, involving 380 adults. Of the 380 randomised participants, 348 completed the studies.Due to differences in outcomes reported among the seven studies, we could only perform limited meta-analysis for both the short-term ICS use (6 months or less) and the longer-term ICS use (> 6 months).During stable state in the short-term group (ICS for 6 months or less), based on the two studies from which data could be included, there were no significant differences from baseline values in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) at the end of the study (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.09) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 0.01 L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.17) in adults on ICS (compared to no ICS). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the average exacerbation frequency (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.79) or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) total scores in adults on ICS when compared with no ICS, though data available were limited. Based on a single non-placebo controlled study from which we could not extract clinical data, there was marginal, though statistically significant improvement in sputum volume and dyspnoea scores on ICS.The single study on long-term outcomes (over 6 months) that examined lung function and other clinical outcomes, showed no significant effect of ICS on any of the outcomes. We could not draw any conclusion on adverse effects due to limited available data.Despite the authors of all seven studies stating they were double-blind, we judged one study (in the short duration ICS) as having a high risk of bias based on blinding, attrition and reporting of outcomes. The GRADE quality of evidence was low for all outcomes (due to non-placebo controlled trial, indirectness and imprecision with small numbers of participants and studies). This updated review indicates that there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of ICS in adults with stable state bronchiectasis. Further, we cannot draw any conclusion for the use of ICS in adults during an acute exacerbation or in children (for any state), as there were no studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Professor 9 7%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 47 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,248,543
of 17,469,628 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,235
of 11,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,926
of 285,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,469,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 285,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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 58% of its contemporaries.