↓ Skip to main content

Addition of anti‐leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
74 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Addition of anti‐leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009585.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan, Raja Ben Salah, Francine M Ducharme

Abstract

In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an anti-leukotriene agent to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3).

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 74 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 42 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 47 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#807,391
of 26,806,895 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,405
of 13,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,527
of 222,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,806,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 222,820 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.