↓ Skip to main content

Long-term azithromycin for Indigenous children with non-cystic-fibrosis bronchiectasis or chronic suppurative lung disease (Bronchiectasis Intervention Study): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, September 2013
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 (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Long-term azithromycin for Indigenous children with non-cystic-fibrosis bronchiectasis or chronic suppurative lung disease (Bronchiectasis Intervention Study): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
Published in
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, September 2013
DOI 10.1016/s2213-2600(13)70185-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia C Valery, Peter S Morris, Catherine A Byrnes, Keith Grimwood, Paul J Torzillo, Paul A Bauert, I Brent Masters, Abbey Diaz, Gabrielle B McCallum, Charmaine Mobberley, Irene Tjhung, Kim M Hare, Robert S Ware, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Indigenous children in high-income countries have a heavy burden of bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis. We aimed to establish whether long-term azithromycin reduced pulmonary exacerbations in Indigenous children with non-cystic-fibrosis bronchiectasis or chronic suppurative lung disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 43 25%
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 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#1,618
of 2,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,595
of 213,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#15
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 213,537 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.