↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory microbiota: addressing clinical questions, informing clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Thorax, July 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Respiratory microbiota: addressing clinical questions, informing clinical practice
Published in
Thorax, July 2014
DOI 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205826
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geraint B Rogers, Dominick Shaw, Robyn L Marsh, Mary P Carroll, David J Serisier, Kenneth D Bruce

Abstract

Over the last decade, technological advances have revolutionised efforts to understand the role played by microbes in airways disease. With the application of ever more sophisticated techniques, the literature has become increasingly inaccessible to the non-specialist reader, potentially hampering the translation of these gains into improvements in patient care. In this article, we set out the key principles underpinning microbiota research in respiratory contexts and provide practical guidance on how best such studies can be designed, executed and interpreted. We examine how an understanding of the respiratory microbiota both challenges fundamental assumptions and provides novel clinical insights into lung disease, and we set out a number of important targets for ongoing research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 3 2%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 147 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 22%
Researcher 29 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 24 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,027,311
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Thorax
#1,241
of 5,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,480
of 204,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thorax
#14
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. 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 204,689 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 71% of its contemporaries.