↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nurse‐led versus doctor‐led care for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

15 X users


12 Dimensions

Readers on

285 Mendeley
Nurse‐led versus doctor‐led care for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004359.pub2
Pubmed ID

Kathryn Lawton, Karen Royals, Kristin V Carson‐Chahhoud, Fiona Campbell, Brian J Smith


Specialist nursing roles to manage stable disease populations are being used to meet the needs of both patients and health services. With increasing cost pressures on health departments, alternative models such as nurse-led care are gaining momentum as a substitute for traditional doctor-led care. This review evaluates the safety, effectiveness, and health outcomes of nurses practising in autonomous roles while using advanced practice skills, within the context of bronchiectasis management in subacute, ambulatory, and/or community care. To compare the effectiveness of nurse-led care versus doctor-led care in the management of stable bronchiectasis. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and bibliographies of selected papers in addition to grey literature such as electronic clinical trials registries. Searches were current as of March 2018. Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. Two reviewers extracted and entered data from included studies. Primary outcomes were numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics, hospital admissions, and emergency department attendances. We included one United Kingdom (UK) study in the review. In this randomised controlled trial, a total of 80 participants, with a mean age of 58 years, were treated for 12 months by a specialist nurse or doctor, then were crossed over to the other clinician for the next 12 months. Two participants died during the study period. Six participants failed to cross over to nurse-led care because of unstable bronchiectasis. Overall, the level of study completion was high.Data show no difference in the numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics (rate ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.30, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported more hospital admissions in the nurse-led care group (rate ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.23, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and did not report emergency department attendance.For secondary outcomes, participants in the nurse-led care group used more healthcare resources during the first year of the trial. Increased admissions and greater use of resources made treatment costs for nurse-led groups' higher. Total costs for both years of the study were £8,464 and £5,228 for nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care. However, by the second year, treatment costs were almost equitable between the two groups, which may reflect the nurses' learning of how to better treat people with bronchiectasis. No statistically significant changes were observed in quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality, or lung function. Wide confidence intervals led to uncertainty regarding these results. Adverse events were not an outcome for this review. This update of the review shows that only one trial met review criteria. Review authors were unable to demonstrate effectiveness of nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care on the basis of findings of a single study. The included study reported no significant differences, but limited evidence means that differences in clinical outcomes between nurse-led care and usual care within the setting of a specialist clinic remain unclear. Further research is required to determine whether nurse-led care is cost-effective, if guidelines and protocols for bronchiectasis management are followed does this increases costs and how effective nurse-led management of bronchiectasis is in other clinical settings such as inpatient and outreach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Researcher 19 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Other 15 5%
Other 50 18%
Unknown 111 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 19%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 126 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 December 2019.
All research outputs
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 341,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 341,733 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.