↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists versus ipratropium for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists versus ipratropium for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002984
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia D Brown, Douglas C McCrory, John White

Abstract

Inhaled short acting beta2 adrenergic agonists and ipratropium bromide are both used in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In patients with acute exacerbations of COPD to: 1. To assess the efficacy of short-acting beta-2 agonists against placebo; 2. Compare the efficacy of short-acting beta-2 agonists and ipratropium. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane COPD trials register was carried out using the terms: bronchodilator* OR albuterol OR metaproterenol OR terbutaline OR isoetharine OR pirbuterol OR salbutamol OR beta-2 agonist. All trials that appeared to be relevant were assessed by two reviewers who independently selected trials for inclusion. Differences were resolved by consensus. All trials that appeared to be relevant were assessed by two reviewers who independently selected trials for inclusion. Differences were resolved by consensus. References listed in each included trial were searched for additional trial reports. Trials were combined using Review Manager using a fixed effects model. The size of the treatment effects were tested for heterogeneity. We identified no placebo-controlled comparisons of beta-2 agonists. Three studies permitted comparison of ipratropium to an inhaled beta-2 agonist. These studies included a total of 103 patients. The beta2-agonists used were: fenoterol and metaproterenol. One study was a parallel group trial of regular therapy for seven days. The other two were cross over studies of single dose treatments, with efficacy measured 90 min post dose. There was no washout period between treatments. Both treatments produced an improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) after 90 min in the range 150-250 ml. The was no difference between treatments, mean difference in FEV1 10 ml; 95% CI -220, 230 ml. In one small crossover study (n=10) there was a significant improvement in arterial PaO2 after 30 minutes with ipratropium (+5.8 mm Hg +/- 3.0 (SEM)) compared to metaproterenol (-6.2 +/- 1.2 mm Hg), but this was not significant at 90 min. There were no data concerning respiratory symptoms. The crossover studies showed no evidence of an additive effect of the two treatments, although they were not designed specifically to test this. There are few controlled trial data concerning the use of inhaled beta2-agonist agents in acute exacerbations of COPD and none that have compared these agents directly with placebo. None of the studies used the more modern beta2-agonists used most widely in this setting (salbutamol and terbutaline). Beta2-agonists and ipratropium both produce small improvements in FEV1, but beta2-agonists may worsen PaO2 for a period. We could not draw conclusions concerning possible additive effects.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Professor 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 23 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,533,599
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,810
of 12,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,539
of 114,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 114,699 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.