↓ Skip to main content

Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
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 (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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.
Title
Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009157.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jimmy Chong, Charlotta Karner, Phillippa Poole

Abstract

Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 196 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 17%
Other 31 15%
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 55 27%
Unknown 22 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 25 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,231,363
of 13,976,883 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,845
of 10,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,289
of 131,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,976,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 131,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.