↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma and Allergy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology
Published in
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/jaa.s160607
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth E Davis, Christianne M Blais, Donald W Cockcroft

Abstract

Standardization of the methacholine inhalation challenge, the most common direct bronchoprovocation test, is important. One aspect of standardization is the appropriate washout period for pharmacologic agents which affect the response. This review summarizes the available data on pharmacologic inhibition of the methacholine response. Specific (anti-muscarinic) agents demonstrate marked bronchoprotection (up to 7 days for the long-acting drugs) which lasts longer than the duration of bronchodilation. The functional antagonist (beta 2 agonist class of medications) shows marked, but less, bronchoprotection which is relatively short lived and is similar to the duration of bronchodilator efficacy. Tolerance develops quickly, especially to the long-acting agents. Single doses of controller medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and leukotriene receptor antagonists, have no effect on the methacholine test, while regular use, at least for ICS, has a modest protective effect whose duration is uncertain and likely variable. Theophylline has a small effect and H1 blockers (all generations) have a negligible effect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Engineering 2 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,885,840
of 18,936,256 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#59
of 296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,313
of 290,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,936,256 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 290,749 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.