↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Greatest International ANtiinfective Trial (GIANT) with moxifloxacin in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: subanalysis of Chinese data of a global, multicenter…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Greatest International ANtiinfective Trial (GIANT) with moxifloxacin in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: subanalysis of Chinese data of a global, multicenter, noninterventional study
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, March 2010
DOI 10.2147/clep.s9166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yulin Feng, Faguang Jin, Shuang Mu, Hong Shen, Xiaohong Yang, Yuling Wang, Zhenshan Wang, Yingjun Kong, Zuke Xiao, Qiming Feng

Abstract

A single infective acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB) has a sustained effect on health status. Although a number of clinical investigations have demonstrated the efficacy of antibiotics in AECB, increased bacterial resistance has caused concern about the efficacy of currently available antibiotic therapies. This subanalysis of a global noninterventional study aimed to evaluate the impact of AECB on the patient and the community and the effectiveness and safety of a treatment with moxifloxacin (MXF) tablets in daily life clinical practice in China. This prospective, noninterventional, noncontrolled, multicenter observational study, which started in China in April 2004 and ended in February 2007, was part of the global GIANT study. Patients with a diagnosis of mild to severe AECB were treated with MXF tablets 400 mg for a period at the physician's discretion. The observation period for each patient covered a complete treatment period with MXF. For each patient, the physician documented data at an initial visit (baseline) and at least one follow-up visit. Data were collected on demography, diagnosis of infection, pretreatment, concomitant diseases and medications, MXF therapy, course of symptoms during investigations, and final assessment of therapy with respect to MXF. In the Chinese subset of the GIANT study, a total of 11,377 patients were included in the intention-to-treat/safety population. At the end of the initial treatment period, improvement and recovery from infection was observed for 98.6% (n = 11,217/11,377) and 92.6% (n = 10,540/11,377) of all patients. After 1 week of treatment, 76.3% (n = 8681/11,377) of patients had recovered. Median time until improvement and recovery was 3.0 and 6.0 days, respectively. Correspondingly, in 95.8% (n = 10,903/11,377) of all patients, overall effectiveness during the initial treatment period with MXF was assessed as "very good" or "good". Compared with the last AECB, the number of days with impact on daily-life activities and the number of nights with sleep disturbances decreased from 3.0 to 2.0 (median) and from 2.0 to 1.0 (median), respectively. In general, MXF treatment was very well tolerated, with physician's overall assessment of tolerability as "good" or "very good" in 95.2% (n = 10,834/11,377) of patients. The incidence rate of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was 0.82% (n = 93) and 0.67% (n = 76), respectively. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders such as nausea (0.31%, n = 35) and vomiting (0.19%, n = 22), which were mostly drug-related. One individual serious adverse event (dyspnea) occurred during the observation period, which was assessed as drug-related. MXF was effective and well tolerated in patients suffering from AECB. The fast speed of the drug's onset of action was associated with rapid improvement of clinical parameters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 January 2022.
All research outputs
#8,247,081
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#321
of 794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,644
of 103,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 103,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.