↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Differences in outcomes between GOLD groups in patients with COPD in the TIOSPIR® trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, January 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Differences in outcomes between GOLD groups in patients with COPD in the TIOSPIR® trial
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s97924
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Dusser, Robert Wise, Ronald Dahl, Antonio Anzueto, Kerstine Carter, Andy Fowler, Peter Calverley

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification could predict mortality risk factors and whether baseline treatment intensity would relate to mortality within each group, using data from TIOSPIR(®), the largest randomized clinical trial in COPD performed to date. A total of 17,135 patients from TIOSPIR(®) were pooled and grouped by GOLD grading (A-D) according to baseline Medical Research Council breathlessness score, exacerbation history, and spirometry. All-cause mortality and adjudicated cardiovascular (CV) and respiratory mortality were assessed. Of the 16,326 patients classified, 1,248 died on treatment. Group B patients received proportionally more CV treatment at baseline. CV mortality risk, but not all-cause mortality risk, was significantly higher in Group B than Group C patients (CV mortality - hazard ratio [HR] =1.74, P=0.004; all-cause mortality - HR =1.18, P=0.11). Group D patients had a higher incidence of all-cause mortality than Group B patients (10.9% vs 6.6%). Similar trends were observed regardless of respiratory or CV medication at baseline. In contrast, respiratory deaths increased consistently from Groups A-D (0.3%, 0.8%, 1.6%, and 4.2% of patients, respectively). The data obtained from the TIOSPIR(®) trial, supporting earlier studies, suggest that proportionally more CV medication and CV deaths occur in GOLD Group B COPD patients, although deaths attributed to respiratory causes are more prevalent in Groups C and D.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 31%
Student > Master 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,142,306
of 16,623,170 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#274
of 1,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,627
of 345,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#9
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,623,170 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 1,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 345,457 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.