| Title |
Mometasone furoate in the management of asthma: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s3261 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo A Tan, Jonathan Corren |
| Abstract |
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have proven to be the most effective and essential therapy for the treatment of bronchial asthma. The 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines recommend ICS as preferred therapy for patients with mild to severe persistent asthma. Mometasone furoate (MF) is a relatively new ICS agent with high affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor. It is approved in the US for maintenance treatment of asthma for patients 4 years of age and older. It has been shown to be well tolerated with no significant adverse side effects observed in clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance. The efficacy of mometasone furoate has been established in large, well-designed studies. In patients with persistent asthma previously treated either with short-acting beta-agonists alone or twice-daily maintenance therapy with ICS, once-daily MF has been shown to be superior to placebo in improving lung function, symptom control, and quality of life; and has shown comparable efficacy compared with budesonide, beclomethasone, and fluticasone. Twice-daily dosing with MF has been demonstrated to successfully allow for reduction or elimination of oral corticosteroids in severe asthmatics. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 37% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 June 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#461
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,509
of 179,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 179,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.