↓ Skip to main content

An imperfect “PAST” Lessons learned from the National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) UK

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, July 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
An imperfect “PAST” Lessons learned from the National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) UK
Published in
Respiratory Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12931-016-0393-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuaib Nasser

Abstract

Asthma deaths are a barometer of the quality of asthma care. The principal care for patients with severe asthma is often a joint partnership between primary and secondary services. Communication between the two services determines the effectiveness of treatment. Undertaking an audit on asthma in either primary or separately in secondary care is a relatively straightforward process. However, when the audit spans both primary and secondary care in a country as large as the United Kingdom which is further sub-divided into the separate healthcare systems of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Island, then the audit becomes considerably more challenging. The National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) reported in May 2014 was a confidential enquiry tasked with identifying circumstances surrounding asthma deaths across the whole of the UK, in order to ascertain avoidable factors and make recommendations to improve care and reduce future asthma deaths (Why asthma still kills: the National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) Confidential Enquiry report, 2014, http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/why-asthma-still-kills-full-report.pdf ). The idea for NRAD arose from a longstanding East of England confidential enquiry started in 1988 by Dr Brian Harrison and then handed onto me in 2001 until funding for the national review of asthma deaths was secured in 2010.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,966,390
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#340
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,991
of 377,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 377,264 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 86% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.