↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Smoking cessation interventions for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
316 Mendeley
Title
Smoking cessation interventions for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011125.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathiresan Jeyashree, Soundappan Kathirvel, Hemant D Shewade, Harpreet Kaur, Sonu Goel

Abstract

Active smoking increases the risk of tuberculosis (TB) infection 2 to 2.5 times and is significantly associated with recurrent TB and TB mortality. Observational studies have shown associations between smoking and poor TB treatment outcomes such as increased loss to follow-up rate, severity of disease, drug resistance and slow smear conversion. Since most smoking-related immunologic abnormalities are reversible within six weeks of stopping smoking, smoking cessation may have substantial positive effects on TB treatment outcomes, TB relapse and future lung disease. To analyse the effect of tobacco smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) on the treatment outcomes of people with adult pulmonary TB. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register using free-text and MeSH terms for TB and antitubercular treatment. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE using the same topic-related terms, combined with the search terms used to identify trials of tobacco cessation interventions from the Specialised Register. We also searched reference list of articles and reviews, the Conference Paper Index, clinicaltrials.gov and grey literature. The searches are current to 29th July 2015. Individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), regardless of date, language and publication status, studies of adults with pulmonary TB on first-line anti-tubercular drugs, with interventions at either an individual or a population level, delivered separately or as part of a larger tobacco control package. This included any type of behavioural or pharmaceutical intervention or both for smoking cessation. Using the eligibility criteria, two authors independently checked the abstracts of retrieved studies for relevance, and acquired full trial reports of candidates for inclusion. The authors resolved any disagreements on eligibility by mutual consent, or by recourse to a third author. Two authors intended to independently extract study data from eligible studies into a data extraction form and compare the findings, synthesise data using risk ratios, and assess risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodologies. However, we found no eligible trials. There were no randomised controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria. A number of potentially eligible studies are underway, and we will assess them for inclusion in the next update of this review. There is a lack of high-quality evidence, i.e. RCTs, that tests the effectiveness of cessation interventions in improving TB treatment outcomes. There is a need for good-quality randomised controlled trials that assess the effect of SCIs on TB treatment outcomes in both the short and long term. Establishing such an evidence base would be an essential step towards the implementation of SCIs in TB control programmes worldwide.

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 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 315 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 14%
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Postgraduate 33 10%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 26 8%
Other 83 26%
Unknown 56 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Social Sciences 16 5%
Psychology 13 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 73 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 February 2021.
All research outputs
#9,575,609
of 17,687,978 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,078
of 11,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,830
of 349,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#153
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,687,978 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 349,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.