↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous beta2‐agonists versus intravenous aminophylline for acute asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Intravenous beta<sub>2</sub>‐agonists versus intravenous aminophylline for acute asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010256
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew H Travers, Arthur P Jones, Carlos A Camargo, Stephen J Milan, Brian H Rowe

Abstract

Inhaled beta(2)-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. For rapid bronchodilation in severe cases, penetration of inhaled drug to the affected small conducting airway may be impeded, and the intravenous (IV) rather than inhaled administration of bronchodilators may provide an earlier response. IV beta(2)-agonist agents and IV aminophylline may also be considered as additional interventions in this setting and this review compares IV beta-agonist agents and IV aminophylline in the treatment of people with acute asthma.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 199 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 16%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 13 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 82 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Psychology 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 86 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,233,197
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,613
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,146
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 286,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 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 68% of its contemporaries.