↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bronchodilators delivered by nebuliser versus pMDI with spacer or DPI for exacerbations of COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
62 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Bronchodilators delivered by nebuliser versus pMDI with spacer or DPI for exacerbations of COPD
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011826.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wouter H van Geffen, W R Douma, Dirk Jan Slebos, Huib AM Kerstjens

Abstract

Bronchodilators are a central component for treating exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) all over the world. Clinicians often use nebulisers as a mode of delivery, especially in the acute setting, and many patients seem to benefit from them. However, evidence supporting this choice from systematic analysis is sparse, and available data are frequently biased by the inclusion of asthma patients. Therefore, there is little or no formal guidance regarding the mode of delivery, which has led to a wide variation in practice between and within countries and even among doctors in the same hospital. We assessed the available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help guide practice in a more uniform way. To compare the effects of nebulisers versus pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) plus spacer or dry powder inhalers (DPI) in bronchodilator therapy for exacerbations of COPD. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles up to 1 July 2016. RCTs of both parallel and cross-over designs. We included RCTs during COPD exacerbations, whether measured during hospitalisation or in an outpatient setting. We excluded RCTs involving mechanically ventilated patients due to the different condition of both patients and airways in this setting. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This review includes eight studies with a total of 250 participants comparing nebuliser versus pMDI plus spacer treatment. We identified no studies comparing DPI with nebulisers. We found two studies assessing the primary outcome of 'change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) one hour after dosing'. We could not pool these studies, but both showed a non-significant difference in favour of the nebuliser group, with similar frequencies of serious adverse events. For the secondary outcome, 'change in FEV1 closest to one hour after dosing': we found a significant difference of 83 ml (95% CI 10 to 156, P = 0.03) in favour of nebuliser treatment. For the secondary outcome of adverse events, we found a non-significant odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI 0.42 to 6.48) in favour of the pMDI plus spacer group. There is a lack of evidence in favour of one mode of delivery over another for bronchodilators during exacerbations of COPD. We found no difference between nebulisers versus pMDI plus spacer regarding the primary outcomes of FEV1 at one hour and safety. For the secondary outcome 'change in FEV1 closest to one hour after dosing' during an exacerbation of COPD, we found a greater improvement in FEV1 when treating with nebulisers than with pMDI plus spacers.A limited amount of data are available (eight studies involving 250 participants). These studies were difficult to pool, of low quality and did not provide enough evidence to favour one mode of delivery over another. No data of sufficient quality have been published comparing nebulisers versus DPIs in this setting. More studies are required to assess the optimal mode of delivery during exacerbations of COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 139 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 19%
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 30 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 24 December 2018.
All research outputs
#383,514
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#855
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,089
of 270,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 270,677 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.