↓ Skip to main content

Reduced risk of clinically important deteriorations by ICS in COPD is eosinophil dependent: a pooled post-hoc analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2020
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
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
Reduced risk of clinically important deteriorations by ICS in COPD is eosinophil dependent: a pooled post-hoc analysis
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12931-020-1280-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mona Bafadhel, Dave Singh, Christine Jenkins, Stefan Peterson, Thomas Bengtsson, Peter Wessman, Malin Fagerås

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,758,344
of 15,055,678 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#339
of 1,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,178
of 329,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#63
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,055,678 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 329,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.