↓ Skip to main content

Cardioselective beta-blockers for reversible airway disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Cardioselective beta-blockers for reversible airway disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002992
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shelley R Salpeter, Thomas M Ormiston, Edwin E Salpeter, Richard Wood-Baker

Abstract

Beta-blocker therapy has mortality benefit in patients with hypertension, heart failure and coronary artery disease, as well as during the perioperative period. These drugs have traditionally been considered contraindicated in patients with reversible airway disease. To assess the effect of cardioselective beta-blockers in patients with asthma or COPD. A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL was performed up to May 2002 using the terms: asthma*, bronchial hyperreactivity*, respiratory sounds*, wheez*, obstructive lung disease* or obstructive airway disease*, and adrenergic antagonist*, sympatholytic* or adrenergic receptor block*. Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials of single dose or continued treatment of the effects of cardioselective beta-blockers in patients with reversible airway disease. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the selected articles, reconciling differences by consensus. Beta1-blockers were divided into those with or without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA). Interventions were: administration of single or continued beta1-blocker, and response to beta2-agonist given after the study drug. Nineteen studies on single-dose treatment and 10 studies on continued treatment met the inclusion criteria. Single dose cardioselective beta-blocker produced a 7.46% (95% CI 5.59, 9.32) reduction in FEV1, but with a 4.63% (95% CI 2.47, 6.78) increase in FEV1 with beta2-agonist, compared to placebo. Treatment lasting 3 - 28 days produced no change in FEV1 (-0.42%; 95% CI -3.74, 2.91), symptoms or inhaler use, whilst maintaining a 8.74% (95% CI 1.96, 15.52) response to beta2-agonist. There was no significant change in FEV1 treatment effect for those patients with COPD: single doses -5.28% (95% CI -10.03, -0.54%), continued treatment 1.07% (CI -3.3, 5.44. With continued treatment there was no significant difference in FEV1 response for beta1-blockers without ISA compared to those with IS: -3.22% (96%CI -7.79, 1.36) compared to 2.72% (95% CI -2.12, 7.59). Those without ISA produced a 12.0% increase in FEV1 after beta2-agonist administration compared to placebo (95%CI 4.12,19.87) while beta1-blockers with ISA produced no change compared to placebo (-0.60% [95%CI -13.93, 12.73). These results were obtained in a small number od studies of few patients. The difference was not significant. Cardioselective beta-blockers given in mild - moderate reversible airway disease or COPD, do not produce adverse respiratory effects in the short term. Given their demonstrated benefit in conditions such as heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias and hypertension, these agents should not be withheld from such patients, but long term safety (especially their impact during an acute exacerbation) still needs to be established.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 11 9%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 23 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,592,599
of 15,625,875 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,946
of 11,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,540
of 289,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,625,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 289,710 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.