↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combination inhaled steroid and long‐acting beta2‐agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 policy source
25 X users
4 Facebook pages


32 Dimensions

Readers on

282 Mendeley
Combination inhaled steroid and long‐acting beta<sub>2</sub>‐agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008532.pub3
Pubmed ID

Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes, Olga M García Morales, Rodolfo J Dennis, Charlotta Karner


The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single-inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are commonly used for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than administering the individual components. To assess relative effects of the following treatments on markers of exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life and lung function in patients with COPD.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropium.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of relevant articles. We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting three months or longer conducted to compare ICS and LABA combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium versus tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone. We independently assessed trials for inclusion, then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected trial information on adverse effects. Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropiumWe included six studies (1902 participants) with low risk of bias that compared tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist combination therapy versus tiotropium alone. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments (odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 5.91; two studies; 961 participants), a reduction in all-cause hospitalisations with the use of combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92; two studies; 961 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19.7, 95% CI 10.75 to 123.41). The effect on exacerbations was heterogeneous among trials and was not meta-analysed. Health-related quality of life measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a statistically significant improvement in total scores with use of tiotropium + LABA/ICS compared with tiotropium alone (mean difference (MD) -3.46, 95% CI -5.05 to -1.87; four studies; 1446 participants). Lung function was significantly different in the combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) group, although average benefit with this therapy was small. None of the included studies included exercise tolerance as an outcome.A pooled estimate of these studies did not show a statistically significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; four studies; 1363 participants), serious adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30; four studies; 1758 participants) and pneumonia (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.82; four studies; 1758 participants). Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICSOne of the six studies (60 participants) also compared combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS therapy alone. This study was affected by lack of power; therefore results did not allow us to draw conclusions for this comparison. In this update, we found new moderate-quality evidence that combined tiotropium + LABA/ICS therapy compared with tiotropium plus placebo decreases hospital admission. Low-quality evidence suggests an improvement in disease-specific quality of life with combined therapy. However, evidence is insufficient to support the benefit of tiotropium + LABA/ICS for mortality and exacerbations (moderate- and low-quality evidence, respectively). Of note, not all participants enrolled in the included studies would be candidates for triple therapy according to current international guidance.Compared with the use of tiotropium plus placebo, tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy does not increase undesirable effects such as adverse events or serious non-fatal adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users 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 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 279 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Other 23 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 87 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 89 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 355,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 355,806 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.