| Title |
Effectiveness of inhaler types for real-world asthma management: retrospective observational study using the GPRD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jaa.s17709 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Price, John Haughney, Erika Sims, Muzammil Ali, Julie von Ziegenweidt, Elizabeth V Hillyer, Amanda J Lee, Alison Chisholm, Neil Barnes |
| Abstract |
Results of randomized controlled trials may not predict effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in real-world clinical practice, where inhaler technique and device characteristics can influence effectiveness. We compared asthma outcomes for ICS delivered via three different inhaler devices: pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), breath-actuated MDI (BAI), and dry powder inhaler (DPI). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 13% |
| Colombia | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Argentina | 1 | 7% |
| Turkey | 1 | 7% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 38% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,038,457
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#22
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,813
of 121,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 121,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them