↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vitamin A and beta (β)-carotene supplementation for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

11 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


8 Dimensions

Readers on

128 Mendeley
Vitamin A and beta (β)-carotene supplementation for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006751.pub5
Pubmed ID

Jorrit JV de Vries, Anne B Chang, Catherine M Bonifant, Elizabeth Shevill, Julie M Marchant


People with cystic fibrosis (CF) and pancreatic insufficiency are at risk of a deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency predominantly causes eye and skin problems, while excessive levels of vitamin A can harm the respiratory and skeletal systems in children and interfere with the metabolism of other fat-soluble vitamins. Most CF centres administer vitamin A as supplements to reduce the frequency of vitamin A deficiency in people with CF and to improve clinical outcomes such as growth, although the recommended dose varies between different guidelines. Thus, a systematic review on vitamin A and vitamin A-like supplementation (carotenes or other retinoids) in people with CF would help guide clinical practice. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. To determine if supplementation with vitamin A, carotenes or other retinoid supplements in children and adults with CF reduces the frequency of vitamin A deficiency disorders, improves general and respiratory health and affects the frequency of vitamin A toxicity. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Additionally we searched several ongoing trials registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry.Most recent database searches: 01 June 2018. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing all preparations of oral vitamin A, carotenes or retinoids (or in combination), used as a supplement compared to placebo at any dose, for at least three months, in people with CF (diagnosed by sweat tests or genetic testing) with and without pancreatic insufficiency. Two authors individually assessed study quality and extracted data on outcome measures. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. Investigators were contacted to retrieve missing quantitative data. No studies of vitamin A or other retinoid supplementation were eligible for inclusion. However, one randomised study of beta (β)-carotene supplementation involving 24 people with CF who were receiving pancreatic enzyme substitution was included. The study compared successive β-carotene supplementation periods (high dose followed by low dose) compared to placebo. The results for the low-dose supplementation period should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of a wash-out period after the high-dose supplementation.The included study did not report on two of the review's primary outcomes (vitamin A deficiency disorders and mortality); results for our third primary outcome of growth and nutritional status (reported as z score for height) showed no difference between supplementation and placebo, mean difference (MD) -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.89 to 0.43) (low-quality evidence). With regards to secondary outcomes, supplementation with high-dose β-carotene for three months led to significantly fewer days of systemic antibiotics required to treat pulmonary exacerbations, compared to controls, MD -15 days (95% CI -27.60 to -2.40); however, this was not maintained in the second three-month section of the study when the level of β-carotene supplementation was reduced, MD -8 days (95% CI -18.80 to 2.80) (low-quality evidence). There were no statistically significant effects between groups in lung function (low-quality evidence) and no adverse events were observed (low-quality evidence). Supplementation affected levels of β-carotene in plasma, but not vitamin A levels. The study did not report on quality of life or toxicity. Since no randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies on retinoid supplementation were identified, no conclusion on the supplementation of vitamin A in people with CF can be drawn. Additionally, due to methodological limitations in the included study, also reflected in the low-quality evidence judged following the specific evidence grading system (GRADE), no clear conclusions on β-carotene supplementation can be drawn. Until further data are available, country- or region-specific guidelines regarding these practices should be followed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 20%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 41 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 46 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,730,520 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 286,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,730,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 286,078 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.