↓ Skip to main content

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: moving forward

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: moving forward
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0481-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Richeldi

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the prototype of a large and heterogeneous group of pulmonary disorders, mainly chronic and progressive, usually known as interstitial lung disease (ILD). Over the last few decades, IPF has been increasingly recognized as a major unmet medical need in respiratory medicine and has become the focus of intense research activity. This is due to the fact that IPF incidence is increasing worldwide, with rates (and unfortunately prognosis) which are very similar to those of many forms of cancer. Basic and clinical research on IPF has been enormously advancing over the last few decades, culminating in the recent discovery of two safe and effective drugs, now finally made available to patients. For all these reasons, missing a diagnosis of IPF is not acceptable anymore and there is a need for spreading the knowledge about IPF across various specialties of medicine globally. In this context, this article collection in BMC Medicine contributes to the ultimate goal of early identification and better management of patients with ILD, and IPF in particular, worldwide.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Computer Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#1,984,736
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,331
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,441
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#50
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 274,665 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 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.