↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Primary care based clinics for asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
Title
Primary care based clinics for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003533.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elora Baishnab, Charlotta Karner

Abstract

Asthma is defined as the presence of variable airflow obstruction with symptoms (more than one of wheeze, breathlessness, chest tightness, cough). It is becoming increasingly common worldwide and this is especially true in higher income countries. In several of these countries there has been a move towards delivery of asthma care via primary care based asthma clinics. Such clinics deliver proactive asthma care sited within primary care, via regular, dedicated sessions which are usually nurse led and doctor supported. They include organised recall of patients on an asthma register and care usually comprises education, symptom review and guideline-based management. Despite the proliferation of such clinics, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), there is a paucity of evidence to support their use. This review sets out to look at the evidence for the effectiveness of asthma clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 231 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Other 13 6%
Other 52 22%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Psychology 13 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 62 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 July 2022.
All research outputs
#8,296,727
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,927
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,024
of 174,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 174,458 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.