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 |
Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta‐agonist treatment of acute asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000052.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cates CJ, Crilly JA, Rowe BH |
| Abstract |
In acute asthma inhaled beta2-agonists are often administered to relieve bronchospasm by wet nebulisation, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 63% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,770,267
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,269
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,930
of 66,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 66,071 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 44 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 65% of its contemporaries.