↓ Skip to main content

Beta-agonist overuse and delay in obtaining medical review in high risk asthma: a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
77 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.
Article details
Title
Beta-agonist overuse and delay in obtaining medical review in high risk asthma: a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial
Published in
npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41533-017-0032-z
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Asthma mortality surveys report delays in seeking medical review and overuse of beta-agonist therapy as factors contributing to a fatal outcome. However, the strength of these associations is limited because many asthma deaths are unwitnessed. We undertook a secondary analysis of data from a 24-week randomised controlled trial of 303 patients with high-risk asthma, randomised to combination budesonide/formoterol inhaler according to a single maintenance and reliever therapy regimen or fixed dose budesonide/formoterol with salbutamol as reliever (Standard) regimen. Medication use was measured by electronic monitors. The thresholds for high, marked and extreme beta-agonist use days were defined in the single maintenance and reliever therapy arm as: >8, >12 and >16 actuations of budesonide/formoterol in excess of four maintenance doses, respectively; and in the Standard arm as: >16, >24 and >32 actuations of salbutamol, respectively. Whether a medical review was obtained within 48 h of an overuse episode was determined by review of data collected during the study by participant report. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of days in which high, marked and extreme beta-agonist overuse occurred without medical review within 48 h was 0·94(0·20), 0·94(0·15) and 0·94(0·17), and 0·92(0·19), 0·90(0·26) and 0·94(0·15) for single maintenance and reliever therapy and Standard regimens, respectively. In at least 90% of days, in which beta-agonist overuse occurred, patients did not obtain medical review within 48 h of beta-agonist overuse, regardless of the magnitude of overuse or the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist regimen. In asthma, overuse of beta-agonist reliever medication and delay in seeking medical review in an exacerbation are linked to asthma deaths. Janine Pilcher at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, and co-workers, conducted a review of data from a study of 303 adult patients with severe asthma, followed over 24 weeks. The patients were allocated to either a budesonide/formoterol, or a salbutamol inhaler to take for symptom relief, in addition to their maintenance treatment. Inhalers were fitted with electronic monitors, to accurately document every use. In both groups, on 90% of days when an exacerbation requiring excess use of an inhaler occurred, patients did not follow-up with medical professionals within 48 h as advised. Further, in both groups, 'extreme' reliever inhaler use was recorded at least once in around one in four patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 28 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Chemistry 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 29 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,561,536
of 32,867,376 outputs
Outputs from npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
#181
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,213
of 348,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,867,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 348,036 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.