↓ Skip to main content

Eligibility of real-life patients with COPD for inclusion in RCTs: a commentary

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Eligibility of real-life patients with COPD for inclusion in RCTs: a commentary
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-016-0494-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salvatore Battaglia, Nicola Scichilone

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are performed to provide evidence to support treatment decisions. Based on the nature of those studies and the need to avoid confounding factors, it has been argued that the population selected in RCTs only partially represents the real-life population. This assumption casts doubts on the applicability of the results provided by RCTs in the management of individuals with an established diagnosis of COPD, and advocates the need for complementary studies with a pragmatic design. Herein, we comment on the recent article published by Halpin and colleagues on the Journal [Halpin et al, Respir Res 17:120, 2016], in which higher rates of inclusions in RCTs for COPD are found compared to previous observations. By analyzing the design of the studies and the end results, we conclude that the accumulating evidence contribute to shed lights on how representative is the outpatient population of real life settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Unknown 5 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#2,055
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,935
of 421,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#30
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 421,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.