↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Practical considerations when prescribing a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for patients with COPD

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Practical considerations when prescribing a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for patients with COPD
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/copd.s160577
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony D D’Urzo, Peter Kardos, Russell Wiseman

Abstract

COPD is characterized by persistent airflow limitation, progressive breathlessness, cough, and sputum production. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are one of the recommended first-choice therapeutic options for patients with COPD, and several new agents have been developed in recent years. A literature search identified 14 published randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs in patients with COPD, with improvements seen in lung function, exacerbations, breathlessness, and health status. A greater weight of evidence currently exists for glycopyrronium (GLY) and tiotropium than for umeclidinium and aclidinium, especially in terms of exacerbation reductions. To date, there have been few head-to-head clinical studies of the different LAMAs. Available data indicate that GLY and aclidinium have similar efficacy to tiotropium in terms of improving lung function, dyspnea, exacerbations, and health status. Overall, evidence demonstrates that currently available LAMAs provide effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for patients with COPD. Delivery devices for the different LAMAs vary, which may affect individual patient's adherence to and preference for treatment. Subtle differences between individual therapeutic options may be important to individual patients and the final treatment choice should involve physician's and patient's experiences and preferences.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 8 16%
Other 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,295,048
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#386
of 2,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,755
of 344,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#17
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 344,492 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.