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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Use of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: improving efficacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1586/17476348.2016.1151789 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian A. Yang, Janet G. Shaw, John R. Goddard, Melissa S. Clarke, David W. Reid |
| Abstract |
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic, inflammatory lung disease characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. The pathological changes in COPD lead to alveolar destruction (emphysema) and chronic airway inflammation, resulting in airflow obstruction and recurrent exacerbations. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory agents that are widely used, especially in combination with long-acting beta-agonists, in patients with COPD. Here, we will summarize the benefits and risks of ICS use for COPD, and discuss approaches to more personalized medicine when selecting COPD patients to commence (or withdraw) ICS use. The conclusion arising is that further validation of clinical and biological markers should be undertaken in COPD, in order to individualize ICS therapy to maximize efficacy for patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,965,269
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine
#364
of 769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,989
of 297,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine
#8
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 297,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 73% of its contemporaries.