↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Holding chambers versus nebulisers for inhaled steroids in chronic asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Holding chambers versus nebulisers for inhaled steroids in chronic asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001491.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher J Cates, Janine C Bestall, Nick P Adams

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids are available in the form of a suspension for nebulisation, although the role of this mode of therapy in the treatment of chronic asthma is still unclear.

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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 119 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Librarian 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 51 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 56 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,569
of 171,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 171,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 50% of its contemporaries.