↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for lung disease in cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

5 tweeters
4 Facebook pages


33 Dimensions

Readers on

113 Mendeley
Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for lung disease in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001505.pub4
Pubmed ID

Larry C Lands, Sanja Stanojevic


Progressive lung damage causes most deaths in cystic fibrosis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen) may prevent progressive pulmonary deterioration and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. To assess the effectiveness of treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We contacted manufacturers of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.Latest search of the Group's Trials Register: 04 February 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at any dose for at least two months, to placebo in people with cystic fibrosis. Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion the review and their potential risk of bias. The searches identified 10 trials; four are included (287 participants aged five to 39 years; maximum follow up of four years) and one is currently awaiting classification pending publication of the full trial report. Three trials compared ibuprofen to placebo (two from the same centre with some of the same participants); one trial assessed piroxicam versus placebo.The three ibuprofen trials were deemed to have good or adequate methodological quality, but used various outcomes and summary measures. Reviewers considered measures of lung function, nutritional status, radiological assessment of pulmonary involvement, intravenous antibiotic usage, hospital admissions, survival and adverse effects. Combined data from the two largest ibuprofen trials showed a significantly lower annual rate of decline for lung function, percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second mean difference 1.32 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 2.42); forced vital capacity mean difference 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 2.28); forced expiratory flow (25-75%) mean difference 1.80 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 3.45). The post-hoc analysis of data from two trials split by age showed a statistically significant slower rate of annual decline of percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity in the ibuprofen group in younger children, mean difference 1.41% (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.80) and mean difference 1.32% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 2.60) respectively. In one trial, long-term use of high-dose ibuprofen was associated with reduced intravenous antibiotic usage, improved nutritional and radiological pulmonary status. No major adverse effects were reported, but the power of the trials to identify clinically important differences in the incidence of adverse effects was low.We did not have any concerns with regards to risk of bias for the trial comparing piroxicam to placebo. However, the trial did not report many data in a form that we could analyse in this review. No data were available for the review's primary outcome of lung function; available data for hospital admissions showed no difference between the groups. No analysable data were available for any other review outcome. High-dose ibuprofen can slow the progression of lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis, especially in children, which suggests that strategies to modulate lung inflammation can be beneficial for people with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 110 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Unspecified 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 27 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 301,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 301,014 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.