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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2466-12-63 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lonneke B van der Mark, PH Edo Lyklema, Ronald B Geskus, Jacob Mohrs, Patrick JE Bindels, Wim MC van Aalderen, Gerben ter Riet |
Abstract |
The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Argentina | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
Researcher | 4 | 9% |
Other | 11 | 24% |
Unknown | 7 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 40% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Other | 8 | 18% |
Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 October 2014.
All research outputs
#5,851,219
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#390
of 1,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,710
of 174,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 174,094 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.