↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The Salford Lung Study: a pioneering comparative effectiveness approach to COPD and asthma in clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Pragmatic and Observational Research, September 2017
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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
The Salford Lung Study: a pioneering comparative effectiveness approach to COPD and asthma in clinical trials
Published in
Pragmatic and Observational Research, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/por.s144157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy E Albertson, Susan Murin, Mark E Sutter, James A Chenoweth

Abstract

The Salford Lung Study (SLS) of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a practical, community-based, randomized, open-label pragmatic study on the efficacy and safety of the once-daily dry powder inhaler that combines the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) with the long-acting beta2 agonist vilanterol (VI). The asthma component of the SLS is not yet reported but the COPD component, done over a 12-month period, found a statistically significant 8.4% reduction in COPD exacerbations when compared to usual care. No differences in adverse events, including serious adverse events and pneumonia, were noted. The importance of real-world findings, such as those found in the SLS COPD trial with inhaled FF/VI, is discussed in comparison to classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with inhaled FF/VI in COPD patients. The real-world, community-based pragmatic RCT like the SLS provides additional generalizable data with direct clinical applicability and potential usefulness in the development of practice guidelines. The results from the SLS, along with those of large and small RCTs, are supportive of the use of once-daily FF/VI in COPD maintenance therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,958,022
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,602
of 325,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 325,467 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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