↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta 2 -agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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.
Title
Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta 2 -agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011600.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J Tan, Clinton J White, Julia AE Walters, E. Haydn Walters

Abstract

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves long-acting bronchodilators including beta-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used. LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single combination inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers remains unclear. To assess the effect of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to combination long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (searched 20 September 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 December 2015) and MEDLINE (searched 15 December 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organisation (WHO) trials portal and pharmaceutical company clinical trials' databases up to 7 Janurary 2016. We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of three weeks' duration or longer which compared treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We identified a total of 586 records in our search. Following removal of duplicates, 386 abstracts were assessed for inclusion. Six studies were identified as potentially relevant; however, all failed to meet the inclusion criteria on full-text assessment or after contacting the corresponding author to clarify study characteristics. There are currently no studies published assessing the effect of ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. As combination LABA/LAMA inhalers are now widely available, there is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate whether ICS provides any added therapeutic benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 38%
Researcher 9 35%
Unspecified 6 23%
Professor 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Other 13 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 81%
Unspecified 7 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 19%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Other 7 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 21 November 2018.
All research outputs
#733,429
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,415
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,015
of 283,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 283,100 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 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.