↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ambulatory and short-burst oxygen for interstitial lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Ambulatory and short-burst oxygen for interstitial lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011716.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Sharp, Huzaifa Adamali, Ann B Millar

Abstract

A large subgroup of people with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are normoxic at rest, but rapidly desaturate on exertion. This can limit exercise capacity and worsen dyspnoea. The use of ambulatory or short-burst oxygen when mobilising or during other activities, may improve exercise capacity and relieve dyspnoea. To determine the effects of ambulatory and short-burst oxygen therapy, separately, on exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life in people who have interstitial lung disease (ILD), particularly those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We conducted searches in the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (all years to May 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years to May 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to 4th May 2016) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to 4th May 2016). We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies, international clinical trial registries and respiratory conference abstracts for studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared ambulatory or short-burst oxygen with a control group in people with ILD of any origin. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We extracted data from included studies using a prepared checklist, including study characteristics and results. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to assess the quality of the included studies. Three studies (including 98 participants, all of whom had IPF) met the inclusion criteria of this review. These studies were conducted in hospital respiratory physiology laboratories. Two studies did not demonstrate any beneficial effect of supplemental oxygen on exercise capacity or exertional dyspnoea. Neither of these studies titrated oxygen requirements to prevent ongoing exertional desaturation. One study showed an increase in exercise capacity as assessed by endurance time with supplemental oxygen. We did not identify any studies that examined the effect of ambulatory oxygen on health-related quality of life, survival, costs or time to exacerbation or hospitalisation. No study reported any adverse events. The quality of evidence for all three studies, as assessed by GRADE criteria, was low. This review found no evidence to support or refute the use of ambulatory or short burst oxygen in ILD due to the limited number of included studies and data. Further research is needed to examine the role of this treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Other 13 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 33 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 36 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,266,798
of 20,027,474 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,890
of 12,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,387
of 277,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,027,474 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 277,456 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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 53% of its contemporaries.