↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Beta2-agonists for acute cough or a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Beta2-agonists for acute cough or a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001726.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorne A Becker, Jeffrey Hom, Miguel Villasis-Keever, Johannes C van der Wouden

Abstract

The diagnosis of acute bronchitis is made on clinical grounds and a variety of clinical definitions have been used. There are no clearly effective treatments for the cough of acute bronchitis. Beta2-agonists are often prescribed, perhaps because clinicians suspect many patients also have reversible airflow restriction (as seen in asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) contributing to the symptoms. To determine whether beta2-agonists improve acute bronchitis symptoms in people with no underlying pulmonary disease (such as asthma, COPD or pulmonary fibrosis). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2015, Issue 5, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE (1974 to May 2015), Web of Science (2011 to May 2015) and LILACS (1982 to May 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated people (adults, or children over two years of age) with acute bronchitis or acute cough and without known pulmonary disease to beta2-agonist versus placebo, no treatment or alternative treatment. Three review authors independently selected outcomes and extracted data while blinded to study results. Two review authors independently assessed each trial for risk of bias. We analysed trials in children and adults separately. Two trials of moderate quality in children (n = 134) with no evidence of airflow restriction did not find any benefits from oral beta2-agonists. Five trials in adults (n = 418) had mixed results but overall summary statistics did not reveal any significant benefits from oral (three trials) nor from inhaled (two trials) beta2-agonists. Three studies with low-quality evidence demonstrated no significant differences in daily cough scores, nor in the percentage of adults still coughing after seven days (control group 71%; risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.18; 220 participants). In one trial, subgroups with evidence of airflow limitation had lower symptom scores if given beta2-agonists. The trials that noted quicker resolution of cough with beta2-agonists were those with a higher proportion of people wheezing at baseline. Low-quality evidence suggests that adults given beta2-agonists were more likely to report tremor, shakiness or nervousness (RR 7.94, 95% CI 1.17 to 53.94; 211 participants; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2). There is no evidence to support the use of beta2-agonists in children with acute cough who do not have evidence of airflow restriction. There is also little evidence that the routine use of beta2-agonists is helpful for adults with acute cough. These agents may reduce symptoms, including cough, in people with evidence of airflow restriction. However, this potential benefit is not well supported by the available data and must be weighed against the adverse effects associated with their use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 135 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 7%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 39 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#515,503
of 18,339,396 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,160
of 11,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,923
of 247,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,339,396 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 247,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.