↓ Skip to main content

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0150-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley Woodcock, Nawar Diar Bakerly, John P. New, J. Martin Gibson, Wei Wu, Jørgen Vestbo, David Leather

Abstract

Novel therapies need to be evaluated in normal clinical practice to allow a true representation of the treatment effectiveness in real-world settings. The Salford Lung Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in adult asthma, evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate (100 μg or 200 μg)/vilanterol 25 μg in a novel dry-powder inhaler, versus existing asthma maintenance therapy. The study was initiated before this investigational treatment was licensed and conducted in real-world clinical practice to consider adherence, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, and real-world factors. Primary endpoint: Asthma Control Test at week 24; safety endpoints include the incidence of serious pneumonias. The study utilises the Salford electronic medical record, which allows near to real-time collection and monitoring of safety data. The Salford Lung Study is the world's first pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a pre-licensed medication in asthma. Use of patients' linked electronic health records to collect clinical endpoints offers minimal disruption to patients and investigators, and also ensures patient safety. This highly innovative study will complement standard double-blind randomised controlled trials in order to improve our understanding of the risk/benefit profile of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in patients with asthma in real-world settings. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01706198 ; 04 October 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 21%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 23 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,882,457
of 9,000,236 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#413
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,666
of 312,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#24
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,000,236 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 312,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.