↓ Skip to main content

Hypertonic saline (HS) for acute bronchiolitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Hypertonic saline (HS) for acute bronchiolitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0140-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chin Maguire, Hannah Cantrill, Daniel Hind, Mike Bradburn, Mark L. Everard

Abstract

Acute bronchiolitis is the commonest cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Currently management consists of supportive care and oxygen. A Cochrane review concluded that, "nebulised 3 % saline may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay". We conducted a systematic review of controlled trials of nebulised hypertonic saline (HS) for infants hospitalised with primary acute bronchiolitis. Searches to January 2015 involved: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; Google Scholar; Web of Science; and, a variety of trials registers. We hand searched Chest, Paediatrics and Journal of Paediatrics on 14 January 2015. Reference lists of eligible trial publications were checked. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials which compared HS versus either normal saline (+/- adjunct treatment) or no treatment were included. Eligible studies involved children less than 2 years old hospitalised due to the first episode of acute bronchiolitis. Two reviewers extracted data to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs) for length of hospital stay (LoS-primary outcome), Clinical Severity Score (CSS) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed effect model, supplemented with additional sensitivity analyses. We investigated statistical heterogeneity using I(2). Risk of bias, within and between studies, was assessed using the Cochrane tool, an outcome reporting bias checklist and a funnel plot. Fifteen trials were included in the systematic review (n = 1922), HS reduced mean LoS by 0.36, (95 % CI 0.50 to 0.22) days, but with considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 78 %) and sensitivity to alternative analysis methods. A reduction in CSS was observed where assessed [n = 516; MD -1.36, CI -1.52, -1.20]. One trial reported one possible intervention related SAE, no other studies described intervention related SAEs. There is disparity between the overall combined effect on LoS as compared with the negative results from the largest and most precise trials. Together with high levels of heterogeneity, this means that neither individual trials nor pooled estimates provide a firm evidence-base for routine use of HS in inpatient acute bronchiolitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 32 33%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 11 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,414,591
of 17,814,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#157
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,465
of 375,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#21
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,814,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 375,702 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.