↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
Title
Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010352
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon Kramer, Bart L Rottier, Rob JPM Scholten, Nicole Boluyt

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 216 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 15%
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 16 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Other 55 25%
Unknown 54 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Unspecified 16 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 57 26%

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 25 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,181,643
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,766
of 12,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,444
of 192,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 192,986 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.