↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for sexual dysfunction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for sexual dysfunction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011442.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

William MM Levack, Betty Poot, Mark Weatherall, Justin Travers

Abstract

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are believed be at higher risk of problems with sexual function than age-matched peers. Problems with sexuality or sexual function associated with COPD may arise as a results of hormonal, physiological, or psychological problems, or as a result of changes in intimate relationships arising from the chronic nature of the condition. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for sexual dysfunction in people with COPD. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register on 8 July 2015 and conducted supplementary searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, four other databases, and two trials registers to July 2015, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We used no language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pharmacological, mechanical, psychological, or educational interventions to address problems with sexual well-being in people with COPD and their partners. Two review authors independently reviewed search results against predetermined inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We included two studies involving a total of 48 participants. One of these studies (an RCT) investigated the effect of a pharmacological intervention (testosterone therapy) compared to a placebo over a four-month period. The other study (a quasi-RCT) compared one month of long-term oxygen therapy to a single 24-hour dose of oxygen therapy over a one-month period. Both studies only included men with moderate to very severe COPD (mean FEV1% across both studies 41%; standard deviation (SD) 11.7%) who were under the age of 74 (mean age across both studies 65 years; SD 7.1). We found low-quality evidence that testosterone therapy for men with COPD results in improvements in erectile function, but no evidence of effect regarding overall satisfaction with sexual function. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions regarding the possibility of adverse events arising from testosterone therapy for COPD or the effect of oxygen therapy on erectile dysfunction. Neither study provided additional data on sexual function, other than erectile function. There is currently insufficient evidence from clinical trials at present to inform the best way of providing interventions to improve sexual function and sexual satisfaction for people with COPD and their partners. Consequently, clinicians need to rely on clinical trials involving people without COPD and expert opinion in order to guide clinical practice in this area. Considerably more trials need to be conducted in this area of clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Psychology 13 10%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 36 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 10 August 2021.
All research outputs
#982,105
of 18,845,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,467
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,894
of 258,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,845,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 258,767 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 93% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.