↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, August 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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Antimicrobial treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis
Published in
Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, August 2014
DOI 10.1586/14787210.2014.952282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith Grimwood, Scott C Bell, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis is characterized by chronic wet or productive cough, recurrent exacerbations and irreversible bronchial dilatation. After antibiotics and vaccines became available and living standards in affluent countries improved, its resulting reduced prevalence meant bronchiectasis was considered an 'orphan disease'. This perception has changed recently with increasing use of CT scans to diagnose bronchiectasis, including in those with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or 'difficult to control' asthma, and adds to its already known importance in non-affluent countries and disadvantaged Indigenous communities. Following years of neglect, there is renewed interest in identifying the pathogenetic mechanisms of bronchiectasis, including the role of infection, and conducting clinical trials. This is providing much needed evidence to guide antimicrobial therapy, which has relied previously upon extrapolating treatments used in cystic fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. While many knowledge gaps and management challenges remain, the future is improving for patients with bronchiectasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,449,903
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy
#123
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,773
of 247,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 247,203 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.