↓ Skip to main content

Anticholinergic bronchodilators versus beta2‐sympathomimetic agents for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Anticholinergic bronchodilators versus beta2‐sympathomimetic agents for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003900
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas C McCrory, Cynthia D Brown

Abstract

Inhaled bronchodilators form the mainstay of treatment for acute exacerbations of COPD. Two types of agent are used routinely, either singly or in combination: anticholinergic agents and beta2-sympathomimetic agonists. To assess the effect of anti-cholinergic agents on lung function and dyspnea in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD, compared with placebo or short-acting beta-2 agonists. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane COPD Trials Register, using the terms: bronchodilator* OR ipratropium OR oxitropium. References listed in each included trial were searched for additional trial reports. Studies were included if the participants were adult patients with a known diagnosis of COPD and had symptoms consistent with criteria for acute exacerbation of COPD. All randomized controlled trials that compared inhaled ipratropium bromide or oxitropium bromide to appropriate controls were considered. Appropriate control treatments included placebo, other bronchodilating agents, or combination therapies. Studies of acute asthma or ventilated patients were excluded. All trials that appeared to be relevant were assessed by two reviewers who independently selected trials for inclusion. Differences were resolved by consensus. Four trials compared the short-term effects of ipratropium bromide vs. a beta2-agonist. Short-term changes in FEV1 (up to 90 minutes) showed no significant difference between beta2-agonist and ipratropium bromide treated patients. The differences were similar among the studies and when combined: Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 0.0 liters (95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) -0.19, 0.19). There was no significant additional increase in change in FEV1 on adding ipratropium to beta2-agonist: WMD 0.02 liter (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). Long-term effects (24 hours) of the ipratropium bromide and beta2-agonist treatment combination were similar: WMD 0.05 liters (95%CI -0.14, 0.05). Neither of two studies found significant changes in PaO2, either short- or long-term, with ipratropium vs. beta-agonist, although one showed an increase in PaO2 in subjects receiving ipratropium bromide at 60 minutes. Adverse drug reactions included dry mouth and tremor. There was no evidence that the degree of bronchodilation achieved with ipratropium bromide was greater than that using a short-acting beta2-agonist. The combination of a beta2-agonist and ipratropium did not appear to increase the effect on FEV1 more than either used alone.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 12 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 60 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 64 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 April 2023.
All research outputs
#16,783,081
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,370
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,916
of 138,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 138,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.