↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Breathing exercises for children with asthma

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
Title
Breathing exercises for children with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011017.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thalita MF Macêdo, Diana A Freitas, Gabriela SS Chaves, Elizabeth A Holloway, Karla MPP Mendonça

Abstract

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood. Breathing exercise techniques have been widely used by researchers and professionals in the search for complementary therapies for the treatment of asthma. To assess the effects of breathing exercises in children with asthma. We searched for trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also consulted trial registers and reference lists of included articles.The literature search was run up to September 2015. We included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises alone versus control or breathing exercises as part of a more complex intervention versus control in children with asthma. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were quality of life, asthma symptoms and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were reduction in medication usage, number of acute exacerbations, physiological measures (lung function (especially low flow rates) and functional capacity), days off school and adverse events. The review included three studies involving 112 participants. All the included studies performed the comparison breathing exercises as part of a more complex intervention versus control. There were no trials comparing breathing exercises alone with control. Asthma severity of participants from the included studies varied. The studies measured: quality of life, asthma symptoms, reduction in medication usage, number of acute exacerbations and lung function. Breathing exercise techniques used by the included studies consisted of lateral costal breathing, diaphragmatic breathing, inspiratory patterns and pursed lips. One study included in the review did not specify the type of breathing exercise used. The control groups received different interventions: one received placebo treatment, one an educational programme and doctor appointments, and one was not described. There were no reported between-group comparisons for any of the primary outcomes. We judged the included studies as having an unclear risk of bias. We could draw no reliable conclusions concerning the use of breathing exercises for children with asthma in clinical practice. The breathing exercises were part of a more comprehensive package of care, and could not be assessed on their own. Moreover, there were methodological differences among the three small included studies and poor reporting of methodological aspects and results in most of the included studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 271 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 17%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 99 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 21%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Psychology 9 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 21 8%
Unknown 107 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#694,716
of 21,940,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,475
of 12,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,791
of 281,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,940,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 281,622 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 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.