↓ Skip to main content

Interpretation of HRCT Scans in the Diagnosis of IPF: Improving Communication Between Pulmonologists and Radiologists

Overview of attention for article published in Lung, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Interpretation of HRCT Scans in the Diagnosis of IPF: Improving Communication Between Pulmonologists and Radiologists
Published in
Lung, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00408-018-0143-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan H. Chung, Jonathan G. Goldin

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD). In this review, we describe the central role of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in the diagnosis of IPF and discuss how communication between pulmonologists and radiologists might be improved to make the interpretation of HRCT scans more effective. Clinical information is important in the interpretation of HRCT scans, as the likelihood that specific radiologic features reflect IPF is not absolute, but dependent on the clinical context. In cases where the clinical context or HRCT pattern are inconclusive, multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) between a pulmonologist and radiologist (and, where relevant, a pathologist and rheumatologist) experienced in the differential diagnosis of ILD is necessary to establish a diagnosis. While it can be challenging to convene a face-to-face meeting, MDD can be conducted virtually or by telephone to enable each specialty group to contribute. To make the MDD most effective, it is important that relevant clinical information (for example, on the patient's clinical history, exposures and the results of serological tests) is shared with all parties in advance. A common lexicon to describe HRCT features observed in ILD can also help improve the effectiveness of MDD. A working diagnosis may be made in patients who do not fulfill all the diagnostic criteria for any specific type of ILD, but this diagnosis should be reviewed at regular intervals, with repeat of clinical, radiological, and laboratory assessments as appropriate, as new information pertinent to the patient's diagnosis may become available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 18 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 20 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,270,673
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#456
of 895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,099
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.