↓ Skip to main content

Better approach for autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis treatment: inhaled or subcutaneous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor: a meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Better approach for autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis treatment: inhaled or subcutaneous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor: a meta-analyses
Published in
Respiratory Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-018-0862-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gaohong Sheng, Peng Chen, Yanqiu Wei, Jiaojiao Chu, Xiaolei Cao, Hui-Lan Zhang

Abstract

Autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP) is a rare pulmonary disease caused by functional deficiency of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). GM-CSF therapy in aPAP has been reported effective in some studies. This meta-analyses aimed to evaluate whether GM-CSF therapy, including inhaled and subcutaneous GM-CSF have therapeutic effect in aPAP patients. We analyzed 10 studies searched from PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library and Cochrane Collaboration databases to evaluate the pooled effects of GM-CSF treatment in aPAP patients. Ten observational studies involving 115 aPAP patients were included. The pooled analyses of response rate (81%, p < 0.001), relapse rate (22%, p = 0.009), PaO2 (13.76 mmHg, p < 0.001) and P(A-a)O2 (19.44 mmHg, p < 0.001) showed that GM-CSF treatment was effective on aPAP patients. Further analyses showed that inhaled GM-CSF treatment was more effective than subcutaneous GM-CSF therapy, including a higher response rate (89% vs. 71%, p = 0.023), more improvements in PaO2 (21.02 mmHg vs. 8.28 mmHg, p < 0.001) and P(A-a)O2 (19.63 mmHg vs. 9.15 mmHg, p < 0.001). As two routes of exogenous GM-CSF treatment, inhaled and subcutaneous were both proven to have effect on aPAP patients. Furthermore, inhaled GM-CSF therapy showed a higher response rate, more improvements on PaO2 and P(A-a)O2 than subcutaneous GM-CSF treatment in aPAP patients, suggesting inhaled GM-CSF therapy could have more benefits on aPAP patients. Therefore, GM-CSF therapy, especially inhaled GM-CSF, might be a promising therapeutic option in treating aPAP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 September 2022.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,891
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,006
of 345,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#40
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 345,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.