↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the role of vitamin insufficiencies and supplementation in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, December 2010
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
A systematic review of the role of vitamin insufficiencies and supplementation in COPD
Published in
Respiratory Research, December 2010
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-11-171
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioanna G Tsiligianni, Thys van der Molen

Abstract

Pulmonary inflammation, oxidants-antioxidants imbalance, as well as innate and adaptive immunity have been proposed as playing a key role in the development of COPD. The role of vitamins, as assessed either by food frequency questionnaires or measured in serum levels, have been reported to improve pulmonary function, reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms. Vitamin supplements have therefore been proposed to be a potentially useful additive to COPD therapy. A systematic literature review was performed on the association of vitamins and COPD. The role of vitamin supplements in COPD was then evaluated. The results of this review showed that various vitamins (vitamin C, D, E, A, beta and alpha carotene) are associated with improvement in features of COPD such as symptoms, exacerbations and pulmonary function. High vitamin intake would probably reduce the annual decline of FEV1. There were no studies that showed benefit from vitamin supplementation in improved symptoms, decreased hospitalization or pulmonary function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 122 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 22%
Student > Bachelor 25 20%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 18 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 03 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,639,322
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#295
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,548
of 190,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 190,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.