↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled corticosteroids for subacute and chronic cough in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Inhaled corticosteroids for subacute and chronic cough in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009305.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate J Johnstone, Anne B Chang, Kwun M Fong, Rayleen V Bowman, Ian A Yang

Abstract

Persistent cough is a common clinical problem. Despite thorough investigation and empirical management, a considerable proportion of those people with subacute and chronic cough have unexplained cough, for which treatment options are limited. While current guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), the research evidence for this intervention is conflicting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 135 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Professor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 38 27%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 28 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,148,246
of 18,760,506 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,782
of 11,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,335
of 167,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,760,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 167,619 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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.