↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mucolytics for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
Title
Mucolytics for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001289.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Wilkinson, Karnam Sugumar, Stephen J Milan, Anna Hart, Alan Crockett, Iain Crossingham

Abstract

Bronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent irreversible dilatation and distortion of medium-sized bronchi. It has been suggested that with widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, more bronchiectasis diagnoses are being made. Patients diagnosed with bronchiectasis frequently have difficulty expectorating sputum. Sputum therefore is retained in the lungs and may become infected, leading to further lung damage. Mucolytic agents target hypersecretion or changed physiochemical properties of sputum to make it easier to clear. One drug, recombinant human DNase, breaks down the DNA that is released at the site of infection by neutrophils.Mucus clearance along with antimicrobial therapy remains an integral part of bronchiectasis management. Chest physiotherapy along with mucolytic agents is commonly used in practice without clear supportive evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 204 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 49 23%
Unknown 45 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 18%
Psychology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 48 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,175,249
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,972
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,788
of 227,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#173
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 227,752 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.