| Title |
Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000052.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J Cates, Emma J Welsh, Brian H Rowe |
| Abstract |
In acute asthma inhaled beta(2)-agonists are often administered by nebuliser to relieve bronchospasm, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 124 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 18 | 15% |
| Spain | 14 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 13 | 10% |
| Canada | 6 | 5% |
| Australia | 6 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 47 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 89 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 18% |
| Scientists | 9 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 443 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 435 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 59 | 13% |
| Other | 37 | 8% |
| Researcher | 35 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 77 | 17% |
| Unknown | 145 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 174 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 6% |
| Psychology | 11 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 5% |
| Unknown | 156 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 133. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#303,331
of 24,955,994 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#509
of 13,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,255
of 203,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,955,994 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 203,883 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 96% of its contemporaries.