↓ Skip to main content

Tiotropium versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Tiotropium versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009285.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karner C, Chong J, Poole P, Karner, Charlotta, Chong, Jimmy, Poole, Phillippa

Abstract

Tiotropium is an anticholinergic agent which has gained widespread acceptance as a once daily maintenance therapy for symptoms and exacerbations of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the past few years there have been several systematic reviews of the efficacy of tiotropium, however, several new trials have compared tiotropium treatment with placebo, including those of a soft mist inhaler, making an update necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Researcher 13 20%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 20 31%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 70%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#862,986
of 12,264,103 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,277
of 8,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,181
of 117,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,264,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. 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 117,939 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 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.