↓ Skip to main content

Continuous versus intermittent beta-agonists for acute asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Continuous versus intermittent beta-agonists for acute asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A Camargo Jr, Carol Spooner, Brian H Rowe

Abstract

Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department are frequently treated with intermittent inhaled beta-agonists delivered by nebulisation. The use of continuous beta-agonist (CBA) via nebulisation in the emergency setting may offer additional benefits in acute asthma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Japan 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 30%
Unspecified 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 57%
Unspecified 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,484,477
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,716
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,961
of 149,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 149,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.