↓ 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 19%
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 28 25%
Attention Score in Context

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
#15,351,847
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,078
of 1,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,265
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#24
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.