| Title |
Considerations for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s52999 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George E Taffet, James F Donohue, Pablo R Altman |
| Abstract |
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common in older people, with an estimated prevalence of 10% in the US population aged ≥75 years. Inhaled medications are the cornerstone of treatment for COPD and are typically administered by one of three types of devices, ie, pressurized metered dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and nebulizers. However, age-related pulmonary changes may negatively influence the delivery of inhaled medications to the small airways. In addition, physical and cognitive impairment, which are common in elderly patients with COPD, pose special challenges to the use of handheld inhalers in the elderly. Health care providers must take time to train patients to use handheld inhalers and must also check that patients are using them correctly on a regular basis. Nebulizers should be considered for patients unable to use handheld inhalers properly. What follows is a review of issues associated with COPD and its treatment in the elderly patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,041,322
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#95
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,023
of 320,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#3
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 320,954 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 47 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 93% of its contemporaries.