| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 Kingdom | 22 | 23% |
| Spain | 15 | 16% |
| Colombia | 3 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 39 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 66 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 15% |
| Scientists | 12 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 283 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 8% |
| Researcher | 24 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 53 | 19% |
| Unknown | 96 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 88 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 11% |
| Unknown | 103 | 36% |
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
#424,787
of 24,764,450 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#754
of 12,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,641
of 447,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,764,450 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 12,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. 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 447,233 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 222 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.