↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Corticosteroids for treating nerve damage in leprosy

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
7 X users


20 Dimensions

Readers on

167 Mendeley
Corticosteroids for treating nerve damage in leprosy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005491.pub3
Pubmed ID

Natasja HJ Van Veen, Peter G Nicholls, W Cairns S Smith, Jan Hendrik Richardus


Leprosy causes nerve damage that can result in nerve function impairment and disability. Corticosteroids are commonly used for treating nerve damage, although their long-term effect is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2009 and 2011. To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nerve damage in leprosy. On 16 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and contacted trial authors. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids for nerve damage in leprosy. The comparators were no treatment, placebo treatment, or a different corticosteroid regimen. The primary outcome was improvement in nerve function after one year. Secondary outcomes were change in nerve pain, limitations in activities of daily living, limitations in participation, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. When data were lacking, we contacted trial authors for additional information. We included five RCTs involving 576 people. The trials were largely at low risk of bias, but we considered the quality of the evidence from these trials as moderate to low, largely due to imprecision from small sample sizes. Two out of the five trials reported on improvement in nerve function at one year. These two trials compared prednisolone with placebo. One trial, with 84 participants, treated mild sensory impairment of less than six months' duration, and the other, with 95 participants, treated nerve function impairment of 6 to 24 months' duration. There was no significant difference in nerve function improvement after 12 months between people treated with prednisolone and those treated with placebo. Adverse events were not reported significantly more often with corticosteroids than with placebo. The other three trials did not report on the primary outcome measure. One (334 participants) compared three corticosteroid regimens for severe type 1 reactions. No serious side effects of steroids were reported in any participant during the follow-up period. Another trial (21 participants) compared low-dose prednisone with high-dose prednisone for ulnar neuropathy. Two participants on the higher dose of prednisone reported adverse effects. The last (42 participants) compared intravenous methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone with intravenous normal saline and oral prednisolone. The trial found no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of adverse events. Corticosteroids are used for treating acute nerve damage in leprosy, but moderate-quality evidence from two RCTs treating either longstanding or mild nerve function impairment did not show corticosteroids to have a superior effect to placebo on nerve function improvement. A third trial showed significant benefit from a five-month steroid regimen over a three-month regimen in terms of response to treatment (need for additional corticosteroids). Further RCTs are needed to establish optimal corticosteroid regimens and to examine the efficacy and safety of adjuvant or new therapies for treating nerve damage in leprosy. Future trials should address non-clinical aspects, such as costs and impact on quality of life, which are highly relevant indicators for both policymakers and participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 46 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 52 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 347,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 347,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.