↓ Skip to main content

Effect of ivacaftor treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D-CFTR mutation: patient-reported outcomes in the STRIVE randomized, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2015
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of ivacaftor treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D-CFTR mutation: patient-reported outcomes in the STRIVE randomized, controlled trial
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-015-0293-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Quittner, Ellison Suthoff, Regina Rendas-Baum, Martha S. Bayliss, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Brenda Castiglione, Montserrat Vera-Llonch

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited, rare autosomal recessive disease that results in chronically debilitating morbidities and high premature mortality. We evaluated how ivacaftor treatment affected CF symptoms, functioning, and well-being, as measured by the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R), a widely-used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. STRIVE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, evaluated ivacaftor (150 mg) in CF patients aged 12+ with the G551D-CFTR mutation for 48 weeks. Treatment effect analysis used a mixed-effects repeated measures model. Treatment benefit analyses applied the cumulative distribution function and a categorical analysis of change scores ("improvement," "no change," or "decline"). Content-based interpretation examined treatment effect on specific item responses. Data from 152 patients with a baseline CFQ-R assessment were analyzed. The treatment effect analysis favored treatment with ivacaftor over placebo on the Body Image, Eating, Health Perceptions, Physical Functioning, Respiratory, Social Functioning, Treatment Burden, and Vitality scales. Findings were supported by the analysis of categorical change. On all CFQ-R scales, the percentage of patients who improved was greater for ivacaftor. In the content-based analysis, the treatment benefit was characterized by better scores across a broad range of domains. Results illustrate broad benefits of ivacaftor treatment across many domains: respiratory symptoms, physical and social functioning, health perceptions, and vitality, as measured by the CFQ-R. The breadth of improvements reflects the systemic mechanism of action of ivacaftor compared to other therapies. Findings support the patient-reported value of ivacaftor treatment in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00909532.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Psychology 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 32 28%
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 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,191,837
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#549
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,542
of 263,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#5
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 263,485 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.