↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Omega‐3 fatty acids for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Omega‐3 fatty acids for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002201.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colleen Oliver, Helen Watson

Abstract

Studies suggest that a diet rich in omega-3 essential fatty acids may have beneficial anti-inflammatory effects for chronic conditions such as cystic fibrosis. This is an updated version of a previously published review. To determine whether there is evidence that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation reduces morbidity and mortality and to identify any adverse events associated with supplementation. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Authors and persons interested in the subject of the review were contacted.Date of last search: 13 August 2013. Randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis comparing omega-3 fatty acid supplements with placebo. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. The searches identified 15 studies; four studies with 91 participants (children and adults) were included; duration of studies ranged from six weeks to six months. Two studies were judged to be at low risk of bias based on adequate randomisation but this was unclear in the other two studies. Three of the studies adequately blinded patients, however, the risk of bias was unclear in all studies with regards to allocation concealment and selective reporting.Two studies compared omega-3 fatty acids to olive oil for six weeks. One study compared a liquid dietary supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids to one without for six months. One study compared omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids to a control (capsules with customised fatty acid blends) for three months. Only one short-term study (19 participants) comparing omega-3 to placebo reported a significant improvement in lung function and Shwachman score and a reduction in sputum volume in the omega-3 group. Another study (43 participants) demonstrated a significant increase in serum phospholipid essential fatty acid content and a significant drop in the n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio following omega-3 fatty acid supplementation compared to control. The longer-term study (17 participants) demonstrated a significant increase in essential fatty acid content in neutrophil membranes and a significant decrease in the leukotriene B4 to leukotriene B5 ratio in participants taking omega-3 supplements compared to placebo. This review found that regular omega-3 supplements may provide some benefits for people with cystic fibrosis with relatively few adverse effects, although evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions or recommend routine use of these supplements in people with cystic fibrosis. This review has highlighted the lack of data for many outcomes meaningful to people with or making treatment decisions about cystic fibrosis. A large, long-term, multicentre, randomised controlled study is needed to determine any significant therapeutic effect and to assess the influence of disease severity, dosage and duration of treatment. Future researchers should note the need for additional pancreatic enzymes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 166 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Other 12 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,342,579
of 25,758,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,823
of 13,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,634
of 402,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,211 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 13,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 402,159 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 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 74% of its contemporaries.