↓ Skip to main content

Rescue medication use as a patient-reported outcome in COPD: a systematic review and regression analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Rescue medication use as a patient-reported outcome in COPD: a systematic review and regression analysis
Published in
Respiratory Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0566-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yogesh Suresh Punekar, Sheetal Sharma, Ankit Pahwa, Jitender Takyar, Ian Naya, Paul W. Jones

Abstract

Reducing rescue medication use is a guideline-defined goal of asthma treatment, however, little is known about the validity of rescue medicine use as a marker of symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To improve patient outcomes, greater insight is needed into the relationship between rescue medication use and alternative COPD outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE® and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from database start to 26 May, 2015. Studies of bronchodilator therapy with a duration of ≥24 weeks were included if they reported either mean change from baseline (CFB) in rescue medication use in puffs/day or % rescue-free days (%RFD), and at least one other COPD endpoint. Correlation and meta-regression analyses were undertaken to test the association between rescue medication use and other COPD outcomes using weighted means (weights proportional to the sample size of the treatment group) and unweighted means (equal weight for each treatment group). Each association was assessed at 6 months and study end. Forty-six studies involving 46,531 patients provided mean data from 145 treatment groups for evaluation. Changes in both measures of rescue medication use were correlated with changes in trough forced expiratory volume in one second ([FEV1]; Pearson correlation coefficients |r| ≥ 0.63; p < 0.0001) and with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (|r| ≥ 0.70; p < 0.0001) at study end. Change in rescue medication use in puffs/day during the study correlated with annualized rates of moderate/severe exacerbations at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.66; p ≤ 0.0028). CFB in puffs/day was not well correlated with Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), but %RFD did correlate with TDI score at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.69; p < 0.0001). The values for CFB in puffs/day corresponding to the proposed minimal clinically important differences for trough FEV1 and SGRQ score were -1.3 and -0.6 puffs/day, respectively. A -1.0 puffs/day CFB in rescue use corresponded to a change of 0.26 events/patient-year in moderate/severe exacerbations. This analysis provides clear evidence of associations at a patient group level between rescue medication use and other clinically important COPD outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Other 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 22%
Psychology 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,131,499
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#207
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,288
of 324,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#8
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 324,786 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.