↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Novel drug-delivery systems for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2012
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
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Novel drug-delivery systems for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2012
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s25199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silviu Albu

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis, one of the most common chronic medical complaints in the United States, seems to be increasing in incidence and prevalence, and has a significant impact on quality of life. Topical forms of medical therapy represent an attractive alternative for drug delivery to the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Topical drug delivery has the advantage of directly acting on the site of inflammation, producing a higher concentration at the target site while avoiding systemic side effects. Although considerable research has been undertaken into improving nasal formulations in order to enhance absorption, little attention has so far been directed to upgrading the delivery devices. The aim of this review is to present current knowledge on the novel drug-delivery devices in use in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis patients, and to present the current available knowledge on topical drug penetration into the sinuses using various delivery devices. Additionally, methods used to enhance fluid sinus deposition are presented and the published clinical studies on the results of nebulized antibiotics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis patients are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 11%
Chemical Engineering 4 9%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 June 2012.
All research outputs
#7,850,053
of 12,510,237 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#551
of 1,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,152
of 119,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,510,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 119,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.