↓ Skip to main content

Asthma in the elderly: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of montelukast

Overview of attention for article published in Asthma Research and Practice, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Asthma in the elderly: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of montelukast
Published in
Asthma Research and Practice, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40733-017-0031-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Columbo

Abstract

Little is known about asthma in the elderly as most studies of this condition have not included this patient group. It is unclear whether leukotriene antagonists benefit older asthmatics. We studied the effect of adding montelukast to the asthma treatment of elderly subjects. Twenty-five subjects 65 years old and older with asthma were evaluated at week 0, 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. Each subject received montelukast 10 mg and placebo each for 8 weeks in a cross-over design. Montelukast for 4 or 8 weeks did not significantly affect ACT, daily symptom scores, number of puffs of albuterol, spirometric values, peripheral blood eosinophils, or serum IgE vs. baseline or placebo. Similar results were obtained when analyzing subgroups of patients with lower ACT, lower FEV1, and higher eosinophils. In this study of elderly asthmatics, montelukast had no effect on asthma symptoms, number of puffs of albuterol, spirometric values, peripheral blood eosinophils or serum IgE. These results will require confirmation in larger patient cohorts and in patients with uncontrolled asthmatic symptoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 July 2020.
All research outputs
#5,921,831
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Asthma Research and Practice
#27
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,362
of 309,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Asthma Research and Practice
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 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 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 309,744 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.