↓ Skip to main content

Cost Effectiveness of Tiotropium in Patients with Asthma Poorly Controlled on Inhaled Glucocorticosteroids and Long-Acting β-Agonists

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Tiotropium in Patients with Asthma Poorly Controlled on Inhaled Glucocorticosteroids and Long-Acting β-Agonists
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40258-014-0107-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Willson, Eric D. Bateman, Ian Pavord, Adam Lloyd, Tania Krivasi, Dirk Esser

Abstract

A considerable proportion of patients with asthma remain uncontrolled or symptomatic despite treatment with a high dose of inhaled glucocorticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs). Tiotropium Respimat(®) added to usual care improves lung function, asthma control, and the frequency of non-severe and severe exacerbations, in a population of adult asthma patients who are uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS/LABA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 20%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Professor 3 9%
Other 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Unspecified 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Other 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,288,005
of 13,038,232 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#121
of 498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,977
of 186,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,038,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 186,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.