↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Inhaled treatment of COPD: a Delphi consensus statement

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled treatment of COPD: a Delphi consensus statement
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s125564
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Ninane, Jean-Louis Corhay, Paul Germonpré, Wim Janssens, Guy F Joos, Giuseppe Liistro, Walter Vincken, Sandra Gurdain, Evelyne Vanvlasselaer, An Lehouck

Abstract

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) global strategy (2015) provides guidance for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with different first-choice options per GOLD category without specification. To evaluate the level of medical experts' consensus on their preferred first-choice treatment within different COPD categories. A two-round Delphi Panel consisting of 15 questions was completed by Belgian pulmonologists (n=31) and European (n=10) COPD experts. Good consensus was reached by both expert groups for long-acting bronchodilators instead of short-acting bronchodilators as first-choice treatment in GOLD A. Single bronchodilation with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) was preferred over long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and LABA/LAMA as first-choice treatment in GOLD B and GOLD C. For GOLD D patients based on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)<50%, a very good consensus was reached for LAMA/LABA as first-choice treatment. For GOLD D patients based on frequent or severe exacerbations, there was a good consensus for LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first choice in the Belgian group. According to the European experts, both LABA/LAMA and LABA/LAMA/ICS could be the first choice for these patients. Belgian and European experts recommend long-acting bronchodilators as first-choice treatment. Treatment containing ICS was found only appropriate in patients with FEV1<50% and ≥2 moderate exacerbations or 1 severe exacerbation/year.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Other 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 64%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 14%
Unspecified 3 14%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#9,925,302
of 12,968,481 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,152
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,777
of 265,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#43
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,968,481 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.