↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Holding chambers versus nebulisers for inhaled steroids in chronic asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Holding chambers versus nebulisers for inhaled steroids in chronic asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001491.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher J Cates, Janine C Bestall, Nick P Adams

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids are available in the form of a suspension for nebulisation, although the role of this mode of therapy in the treatment of chronic asthma is still unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Librarian 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 45 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 48 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,449,012
of 21,331,631 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,324
of 12,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,806
of 139,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,331,631 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 139,305 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.