↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines or guidance for better idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis management?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Guidelines or guidance for better idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis management?
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0567-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jürgen Behr

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare fibrotic interstitial lung disease with a relentlessly progressive course and fatal outcome. Guidelines summarizing the current evidence and providing evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rare diseases such as IPF are important since individual physicians often have limited experience. Nevertheless, the available evidence is often scarce and, therefore, evidence-based recommendations are prone to being vague or with low confidence, thus creating uncertainty instead of guidance. Moreover, the effect of guidelines themselves on clinical practice has not been sufficiently evaluated. On the other hand, expert opinion may be biased and lead to the misinterpretation of evidence, resulting in misleading recommendations and a potential harm to patients. This editorial focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of evidence-based guidelines and professional experience in the context of a rare disease such as IPF and tries to assess the optimum combination of both approaches.Please see related commentary articles: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0562-1 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0563-0.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tunisia 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 24%
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,784,649
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,132
of 3,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,260
of 400,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#47
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 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 3,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. 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 400,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.