↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, November 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s92412
Pubmed ID
Authors

Afisi S Ismaila, Eline Huisman, Yogesh Punekar, Andreas Karabis

Abstract

Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD). A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use. Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV1 (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06-125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50-129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10-125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20-169.20]); 24-week trough FEV1 (128.10 mL [84.10-172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10-148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45-117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51-155.30]); 24-week St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (-4.60 [-6.76 to -2.54]; -3.14 [-3.83 to -2.45]; -2.43 [-2.92 to -1.93]; -4.69 [-7.05 to -2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41-1.59]; 1.01 [0.79-1.22]; 0.82 [0.62-1.02]; 1.00 [0.49-1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; -0.41 puffs/day [-0.62 to -0.20]; -0.52 puffs/day [-0.74 to -0.30]; -0.30 puffs/day [-0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV1, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were -12.8 mL (-39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (-7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (-11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (-11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (-5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (-15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered. The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician's and patient's preference.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 21%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,608,320
of 21,200,954 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#134
of 2,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,793
of 395,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#7
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,200,954 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 2,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 395,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.