↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous beta2-agonists for acute asthma in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
4 tweeters


106 Dimensions

Readers on

81 Mendeley
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.
Intravenous beta2-agonists for acute asthma in the emergency department
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002988
Pubmed ID

Andrew A Travers, Arthur P Jones, Karen D Kelly, Carlos A Jr Camargo, Samantha J Barker, Brian H Rowe


Inhaled beta-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of intravenous beta-agonist agents may also be beneficial in this setting. To determine the benefit of intravenous (IV) beta2-agonists for severe acute asthma treated in the emergency department. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Register which is a compilation of systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL as well as hand searching of 20 respiratory journals. Bibliographies from included studies and known reviews were also searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies. Only RCTs were considered for inclusion. Studies were included if patients presented to the emergency department with acute asthma and were treated with IV selective or nonselective beta2-agonists versus placebo, inhaled beta2-agonists, or other standard of care. Pulmonary function, vital signs, arterial gasses, adverse effects, and/or clinical success could be reported as outcome measures. Two reviewers independently selected potentially relevant articles and selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed using two scoring systems and two reviewers. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers, and confirmed with corresponding authors. Missing data were obtained from authors or calculated from data present in the papers. Trials were combined using a random effects model for odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). From 746 identified references, 55 potentially relevant articles were identified and 15 were included. The trials included 584 patients. Overall, selective IV beta2-agonist use conferred no advantage over the comparator regimes. For example, it was associated with a lower PEFR after 60 mins compared to inhaled beta2-agonist, although the difference was not statistically significant (-24.7 l/min; 95%CI 2.9, -52.3). There was no difference in heart rate (4.5 bpm; 95% CI -4.9, 14.0). In the well performed blinded studies there was no difference in autonomic side effects between treatments (Odds Ratio 2.2 (95%CI 0.9, 5.7). There is no evidence to support the use of IV beta2-agonists in patients with severe acute asthma. These drugs should be given by inhalation. No subgroups were identified in which the IV route should be considered.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 76 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Other 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 117,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 117,347 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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.