↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pressurised metered dose inhalers versus all other hand-held inhaler devices to deliver beta-2 agonist bronchodilators for non-acute asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Pressurised metered dose inhalers versus all other hand-held inhaler devices to deliver beta-2 agonist bronchodilators for non-acute asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix SF Ram, David DM Brocklebank, John White, John J Wright, Paul Jones

Abstract

A number of different inhaler devices are available to deliver beta2-agonist bronchodilators in asthma. These include hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) or chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free propelled pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder devices. To determine the clinical effectiveness of pMDI compared with any other available handheld inhaler device for the delivery of short-acting beta-2 agonist bronchodilators in non-acute asthma in children and adults. The Cochrane Collaboration Clinical Trials register was searched for studies as well as separate additional searches carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and also on the Current Contents Index as well as the Science Citation Index. In addition, 17 individual online respiratory journals and 12 electronically available clinical trial databases were also searched. The UK pharmaceutical companies who manufacture inhaled asthma medication were contacted in order to obtain details of any published or unpublished studies. - The full texts of all potentially relevant articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Fixed and random effect models were used. Dichotomous outcomes were assessed using Odds Ratios or Relative Risks (RR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI). Eighty-four randomised controlled trials were included in this review, but few could be combined to assess a specific outcome for a given delivery device comparison. Only two studies required demonstration of adequate pMDI technique as an entry requirement. There were no difference between a standard CFC containing pMDI and any other device for most outcomes. Regular use of HFA-pMDI containing salbutamol reduced the requirement for short courses of oral corticosteroids (3 trials, 519 patients: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.49, 0.91); however the total number of exacerbations were unchanged (3 trials, 1271 patients: RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.75, 1.33). In patients with stable asthma, short-acting beta-2 bronchodilators in standard CFC-pMDI's are as effective as any other devices. The effect of HFA-pMDI on requirement for oral corticosteroid courses to treat acute exacerbations should be confirmed. Effectiveness studies that use an intention-to-treat analysis are required.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 6 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 4%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 55 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 58 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,170,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,660
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,047
of 121,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 121,303 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 91% of its contemporaries.