↓ Skip to main content

Republished: Respiratory microbiota: addressing clinical questions, informing clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Postgraduate Medical Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Republished: Respiratory microbiota: addressing clinical questions, informing clinical practice
Published in
Postgraduate Medical Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-205826rep
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 2 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 9 20%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Chemistry 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#868,156
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#152
of 3,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,495
of 278,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 278,032 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.