↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of the cause of chronic dyspnoea in primary and tertiary care: characterizing diagnostic confidence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thoracic Disease, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Diagnosis of the cause of chronic dyspnoea in primary and tertiary care: characterizing diagnostic confidence
Published in
Journal of Thoracic Disease, June 2018
DOI 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yao C Huang, Olivia R Ferry, Scott C McKenzie, Rayleen V Bowman, Michael Hamilton, Philip J Masel, Kwun M Fong, Ian A Yang

Abstract

Chronic dyspnoea (breathlessness) in adults is a common symptom, the exact cause of which may be difficult to diagnose on initial presentation. We characterised the diagnostic complexity of chronic dyspnoea in primary care and tertiary care. This retrospective observational study screened consecutive referral letters of all adult patients referred to cardiology or respiratory clinics at a tertiary referral hospital, during May to June 2015. For patients referred due to chronic dyspnoea, data were analysed from the initial referral letter and subsequent specialist clinic letters for the 6-month time period after referral. Of 1,370 patient referrals, 122 patients (mean age 63 y, 55% female) were referred due to chronic dyspnoea. One hundred and five patients (86%) were referred from primary care and 17 (14%) from other hospital clinics. Sixty-one percent were referred with an evident diagnosis (referrer was confident of the initial diagnosis), whereas 39% had non-evident or unclear diagnoses. By 6 months after referral, a definitive final diagnosis had been determined by the specialist clinics in 62% of patients. The majority of patients had been referred appropriately to a cardiology or respiratory clinic, based on the final diagnosis. However, only 26% of diagnoses were fully concordant between the initial referrer diagnosis and the final specialist clinic diagnosis, with 26% being partially concordant and 48% non-concordant. Diagnostic certainty of the referrer was associated with concordance of diagnosis between the referrer and specialist clinic (P<0.001). In adult patients referred due to chronic dyspnoea to hospital specialist clinics, there is considerable diagnostic uncertainty about its aetiology, for both referring doctors and specialist clinics. These results demonstrate the current difficulty in diagnosing the cause of chronic dyspnoea in adults, and highlight the need for evidence-based diagnostic pathways.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 36%
Researcher 4 36%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Psychology 2 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,986,372
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#1,401
of 2,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,773
of 330,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Disease
#62
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.