↓ Skip to main content

Clinical trials of investigational agents for IPF: a review of a Cochrane report

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, April 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Clinical trials of investigational agents for IPF: a review of a Cochrane report
Published in
Respiratory Research, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-14-s1-s4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Richeldi

Abstract

The magnitude of treatment effect can be assessed by a number of methods. One reliable method of collectively analysing data from randomised clinical trials is that used in Cochrane reviews. These systematic reviews identify and analyse the available evidence using the reliable method of meta-analysis. These often combine data from studies to provide robust evaluations of overall treatment effects. In 2003, a review of data from studies of corticosteroid use in IPF patients found no evidence of a treatment effect. Similarly, very little evidence was found to support the use of immunomodulatory agents. A recent update of these Cochrane reviews failed to identify any new evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids in IPF. However, a review of non-steroid agents for the treatment of IPF identified data from 15 RCTs that was suitable for analysis. Two trials of interferon gamma-1b were pooled and analysed, but no treatment effect was observed in terms of survival. Meta-analysis of three Phase III studies of pirfenidone treatment in IPF patients suggested that progression-free survival was significantly increased by 30%, demonstrating a reduction in the decline of lung function in IPF patients. In addition, there are numerous ongoing trials investigating potential therapeutic agents which provides hope for IPF patients and their doctors.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 17%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Computer Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%

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 20 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,528,401
of 14,013,582 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#302
of 1,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,820
of 150,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,013,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 150,659 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.