↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Speleotherapy for asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
4 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
4 Wikipedia pages
1 Q&A thread


35 Dimensions

Readers on

97 Mendeley
Speleotherapy for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001741
Pubmed ID

Sylvia P Beamon, Albrecht Falkenbach, Grigory Fainburg, Klaus Linde


Speleotherapy, the use of subterranean environments, is a therapeutic measure in the treatment of chronic obstructive airways diseases. It is virtually unknown in the UK or the US, but has considerable widespread use in some Central and Eastern European countries. To review evidence for the efficacy of speleotherapy in the treatment of asthma. We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Airways group database), contacted speleotherapy centres and experts in the field, hand searched proceedings, and checked bibliographies of articles obtained to identify possible relevant publications. We included controlled clinical trials (i.e., both randomized and those not reporting the method of allocation) that compared clinical effects of speleotherapy with another intervention or no intervention in patients with chronic asthma. Information concerning patients, interventions, results, and methodology were extracted in standardized manner by two independent reviewers and summarized descriptively. Three trials including a total of 124 asthmatic children met the inclusion criteria, but only one trial had reasonable methodological quality. Two trials reported that speleotherapy had a beneficial short-term effect on lung function. Other outcomes could not be assessed in a reliable manner. A further search was conducted in July 2000. One further paper was excluded (see excluded studies) The available evidence does not permit a reliable conclusion as to whether speleo-therapeutic interventions are effective for the treatment of chronic asthma. Randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 94 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 42 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 43 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 16 January 2022.
All research outputs
of 21,585,719 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 247,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,585,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 247,628 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 435 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 72% of its contemporaries.