↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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’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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 22%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 April 2018.
All research outputs
#10,616,926
of 17,769,673 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,108
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,382
of 286,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#34
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,769,673 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 286,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.