↓ 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Researcher 21 10%
Other 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 63 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 7%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 69 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#371,707
of 21,753,060 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#699
of 12,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,361
of 426,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,753,060 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 12,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. 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 426,847 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.