↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Topical nasal steroids for treating nasal polyposis in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Topical nasal steroids for treating nasal polyposis in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008253.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Beer, Kevin W Southern, Andrew C Swift

Abstract

Nasal polyps frequently occur in people with cystic fibrosis. Sinus infections have been shown to be a factor in the development of serious chest complications in these people. Nasal polyps have been linked to a higher risk of lower respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Topical nasal steroids are of proven efficacy for treating nasal polyposis in the non-cystic fibrosis population. There is no clear current evidence for the efficacy of topical steroids for nasal polyps in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an updated version of a previously published review. To assess the effectiveness of topical nasal steroids for treating symptomatic nasal polyps in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Latest search: 10 June 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled comparing the effects of topical nasal steroids to placebo in people with nasal polyps with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included trial and extracted data. One single-centred trial (46 participants) was identified comparing a topical steroid (betamethasone) given as nasal drops to placebo. Treatment was given twice daily for six weeks; 22 participants received the active drug.Subjective symptom scores, change in polyp size, and side effects were assessed. There was no difference in nasal symptom scores between the treatment and placebo groups. Betamethasone was effective in reducing the size of polyps, but was associated with increased reports of mild side effects, nasal bleeding and discomfort.Risk of bias was high since over 50% of people enrolled did not complete the study. Follow-up of participants was short (six weeks) also reducing the significance of the results for clinical practice. This review suggests topical steroids for nasal polyposis in people with cystic fibrosis have no demonstrable effect on subjective nasal symptom scores. They have some effect in reducing the size of the polyps, but due to the small sample size, poor completion rates and lack of follow-up, the trial is at high risk of bias and evidence for efficacy is limited. Overall there is no clear evidence for using topical steroids in people with cystic fibrosis and nasal polyposis.A well-designed randomised controlled trial of adequate power and long-term follow-up is needed. Validated measures of symptoms and physical findings should be performed and quality of life issues addressed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,608,346
of 15,465,366 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,135
of 11,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,856
of 233,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,465,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 233,742 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 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.