↓ Skip to main content

Patient- and parent-initiated oral steroids for asthma exacerbations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Patient- and parent-initiated oral steroids for asthma exacerbations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012195.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad B Ganaie, M Munavvar, Morris Gordon, Hui F Lim, David JW Evans

Abstract

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways affecting an estimated 334 million people worldwide. During severe exacerbations, patients may need to attend a medical centre or hospital emergency department for treatment with systemic corticosteroids, which can be administered intravenously or orally. Some people with asthma are prescribed oral corticosteroids (OCS) for self-administration (i.e. patient-initiated) or to administer to their child with asthma (i.e. parent-initiated), in the event of an exacerbation. This approach to treatment is becoming increasingly common. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of patient- or parent-initiated oral steroids for adults and children with asthma exacerbations. We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR from its inception to 18 May 2016 and trial registries from their inception to 24 August 2016; we imposed no restriction on language of publication. We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data; we excluded cross-over trials.We looked for studies where adults (aged 18 years or older) or children of school age (aged 5 years or older) with asthma were randomised to receive: (a) any patient-/parent-initiated OCS or (b) placebo, normal care, alternative active treatment, or an identical personalised asthma action plan without the patient- or parent-initiated OCS component. Two review authors independently screened the search results to identify any studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were hospital admissions for asthma, asthma symptoms at follow-up and serious adverse events. Despite comprehensive searches of electronic databases and clinical trial registries, we did not identify any studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Five potentially relevant studies were excluded for two reasons: the intervention did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review (three studies) and studies had a cross-over design (two studies). Two of the excluded studies asked the relevant clinical question. However, these studies were excluded due to their cross-over design, as per the protocol. We contacted the authors of the cross-over trials who were unable to provide data for the first treatment period (i.e. prior to cross-over). There is currently no evidence from randomised trials (non-cross-over design) to inform the use of patient- or parent-initiated oral corticosteroids in people with asthma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 16 20%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Other 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 43%
Unspecified 22 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,175,219
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,842
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,257
of 366,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 366,864 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.