↓ Skip to main content

Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD - a network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD - a network meta-analysis
Published in
Respiratory Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-14-100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon Cope, James F Donohue, Jeroen P Jansen, Matthias Kraemer, Gorana Capkun-Niggli, Michael Baldwin, Felicity Buckley, Alexandra Ellis, Paul Jones

Abstract

Clinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Other 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 4 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 8 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,277,392
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,323
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,271
of 222,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 222,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 62% of its contemporaries.