| Title |
A review of nebulized drug delivery in COPD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s114034 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald P Tashkin |
| Abstract |
Current guidelines recommend inhaled pharmacologic therapy as the preferred route of administration for treating COPD. Bronchodilators (β2-agonists and antimuscarinics) are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy in patients with COPD, with long-acting agents recommended for patients with moderate to severe symptoms or those who are at a higher risk for COPD exacerbations. Dry powder inhalers and pressurized metered dose inhalers are the most commonly used drug delivery devices, but they may be inadequate in various clinical scenarios (eg, the elderly, the cognitively impaired, and hospitalized patients). As more drugs become available in solution formulations, patients with COPD and their caregivers are becoming increasingly satisfied with nebulized drug delivery, which provides benefits similar to drugs delivered by handheld inhalers in both symptom relief and improved quality of life. This article reviews recent innovations in nebulized drug delivery and the important role of nebulized therapy in the treatment of COPD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 40 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 11% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 44 | 36% |
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 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,893,904
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#312
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,876
of 333,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#14
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 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 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 333,154 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.