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 |
Long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies
|
---|---|
Published in |
Respiratory Research, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1465-9921-15-83 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Gimena Hernández, Mónica Avila, Àngels Pont, Olatz Garin, Jordi Alonso, Laurent Laforest, Christopher J Cates, Montserrat Ferrer, ASTRO-LAB group |
Abstract |
Although several systematic reviews investigated the safety of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in asthma, they mainly addressed randomized clinical trials while evidence from non-randomized studies has been mostly neglected. We aim to assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults and children with asthma treated with LABAs and Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICs), compared to patients treated only with ICs, from published non-randomized studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Australia | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 3% |
United States | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
Researcher | 5 | 14% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 22% |
Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 49% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 5% |
Unknown | 9 | 24% |
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 18 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,390,979
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,347
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,747
of 240,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 54% 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 240,077 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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.