↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2018
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
96 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
Title
Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012620.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuji Oba, Edna Keeney, Namratta Ghatehorde, Sofia Dias

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 14%
Unspecified 26 9%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Researcher 23 8%
Other 22 8%
Other 62 21%
Unknown 93 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 11%
Unspecified 26 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 6%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 100 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 08 February 2023.
All research outputs
#408,328
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#733
of 12,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,559
of 443,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 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 12,831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 443,842 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 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.