| Title |
Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12875-015-0373-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annika Viniol, Dominik Beidatsch, Thomas Frese, Milena Bergmann, Paula Grevenrath, Laura Schmidt, Sonja Schwarm, Jörg Haasenritter, Stefan Bösner, Annette Becker |
| Abstract |
To deal with patients suffering from dyspnoea, it is crucial for general practitioners to know the prevalences of different diseases causing dyspnoea in the respective area and season, the likelihood of avoidable life-threatening conditions and of worsening or recovery from disease. Aim of our project was to conduct a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on the prevalence, aetiology, and prognosis of dyspnoea as presented to GPs in a primary care setting. We did a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on dyspnoea in primary care. For this we included all studies investigating the complaint "dyspnoea" as a primary or secondary consulting reason in general practice. Apart from qualitative studies, all kind of study designs independent from type of data assessment, outcome measurement or study quality were included. Symptom-evaluating studies from other settings than primary care and studies which exclusively included children (age <18 years) were excluded from the review. Studies selecting patients prior to recruitment, e.g. because of an increased probability for a particular diagnosis, were also excluded. This systematic review identified 6 symptom evaluating studies on dyspnoea in the primary care setting. The prevalence of dyspnoea as reason for consultation ranges from 0.87 to 2.59 % in general practice. Among all dyspnoea patients 2.7 % (CI 2.2-3.3) suffer from pneumonia. Further specification of underlying aetiologies seems difficult due to the studies' heterogeneity showing a great variety of probabilities. There is a great lack of empirical evidence on the prevalence, aetiology and prognosis of dyspnoea in general practice. This might yield uncertainty in diagnosis and evaluation of dyspnoea in primary care. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
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 28 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,953
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,005
of 294,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#37
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 294,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.