↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

8 tweeters
1 Facebook page


41 Dimensions

Readers on

184 Mendeley
Physical exercise training for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002768.pub3
Pubmed ID

Thomas Radtke, Sarah J Nolan, Helge Hebestreit, Susi Kriemler


Physical exercise training may form an important part of regular care for people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of previously published reviews. To determine the effects of physical exercise training compared to no training on aerobic exercise capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, health-related quality of life and other patient-relevant (secondary) outcomes in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 10 March 2015. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing exercise training of any type and duration with conventional care in people with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Of the 48 studies identified, 13 studies which included 402 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The numbers in each study ranged from nine up to 72 participants; one study was in adults, six were in children and adolescents and six studies included all age ranges. Four studies of hospitalised participants lasted less than one month and nine studies were outpatient-based, lasting between two months and three years. The studies included participants with a wide range of disease severity and employed differing levels of supervision with a mixture of types of training. There was also wide variation in the quality of the included studies.This systematic review shows limited evidence from both short- and long-term studies that in people with cystic fibrosis aerobic or anaerobic physical exercise training or a combination of both has a positive effect on aerobic exercise capacity, pulmonary function and health-related quality of life. Although improvements are not consistent between studies and ranged from no effects to clearly positive effects, the most consistent effects of the heterogeneous exercise training modalities and durations were found for maximal aerobic exercise capacity (in four out of six studies) with unclear effects on FEV1 (in two out of 10 studies) and health-related quality of life (in two out of five studies). Evidence about the efficacy of physical exercise training in cystic fibrosis from 13 small studies with low to moderate methodological quality is limited. Exercise training is already part of regular outpatient care offered to most people with cystic fibrosis, and since there is some evidence for beneficial effects on aerobic fitness and no negative side effects exist, there is no reason to actively discourage this. The benefits from including physical exercise training in an individual's regular care may be influenced by the type and duration of the training programme. High quality randomised controlled trials are needed to comprehensively assess the benefits of exercise programmes in people with cystic fibrosis and the relative benefits of the addition of aerobic versus anaerobic versus a combination of both types of physical exercise training to the care of people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 23%
Student > Bachelor 31 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 22%
Sports and Recreations 15 8%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 48 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
of 22,158,490 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 247,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,158,490 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 247,427 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.