↓ Skip to main content

On‐demand intermittent beclomethasone is effective for mild asthma in Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
On‐demand intermittent beclomethasone is effective for mild asthma in Brazil
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13601-018-0192-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulo Camargos, Alessandra Affonso, Geralda Calazans, Lidiana Ramalho, Marisa L. Ribeiro, Nulma Jentzsch, Simone Senna, Renato T. Stein

Abstract

Daily inhaled corticosteroids are widely recommended for mild persistent asthma. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the intermittent use of beclomethasone as an alternative treatment for mild persistent asthma. In this 16-week trial, children aged 6-18 years were evaluated. Subjects in the continuous treatment arm of the study received 500 μg/day of beclomethasone, whereas the intermittent ones were given 1000 μg/day (250 μg every 6 h) in combination with albuterol for 7 days upon exacerbations or worsening of symptoms. Primary outcome (i.e., treatment failure) was the occurrence of any asthma exacerbation requiring prednisone, and co-secondary outcomes were the mean/median differences for both, (1) the pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (% predicted) and (2) asthma control test (ACT/cACT) scores, from randomization to the last follow-up visit, and beclomethasone and albuterol consumption. Ninety-four subjects from each treatment arm were included. They were comparable regarding all baseline characteristics; prednisone was used by 10 (10.6%) and 7 (7.4%) patients, respectively (95% CI - 6.1 to 12.6%, for the difference; p = 0.47). Statistical analysis showed no statistically significant differences with respect to both FEV1 (p = 0.39) and ACT/cACT scores (p = 0.38). As assessed through canister weighting, children used from 0.5 to 0.7 and from 1.6 to 1.8 puffs per day of beclomethasone in the intermittent and continuous regimens, respectively. Regarding albuterol, received 0.3-0.4 (intermittent) and 0.1-0.2 (continuous) inhalations per day. There were no relevant clinical or functional differences between the two treatment regimens. Clinicians might consider intermittent inhaled steroid therapy as a therapeutic regimen for mild persistent asthma.Trial registration The Portuguese and English versions of the study protocol were submitted, approved, and registered in the Brazilian Network Platform for Clinical Trials (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br) under the primary identifier number "RBR-3gbyhk". This platform is part of the Primary Registries in the World Health Organization Registry Network, where the trial is registered under the following Universal Trial Number: 1111-1149-4774.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,364,778
of 25,301,208 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#327
of 753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,330
of 338,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,301,208 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. 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 338,421 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.