↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
7 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
149 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
392 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 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 392 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 384 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 58 15%
Student > Master 55 14%
Researcher 36 9%
Other 34 9%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Other 74 19%
Unknown 108 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 165 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 7%
Psychology 10 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 25 6%
Unknown 117 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 139. 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 14 February 2021.
All research outputs
#217,145
of 21,200,954 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#364
of 12,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,713
of 180,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,200,954 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 12,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. 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 180,541 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 111 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 98% of its contemporaries.