↓ Skip to main content

Exhalative Breath Markers Do Not Offer for Diagnosis of Interstitial Lung Diseases: Data from the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg) and Biobank

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Medicine, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Exhalative Breath Markers Do Not Offer for Diagnosis of Interstitial Lung Diseases: Data from the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg) and Biobank
Published in
Journal of Clinical Medicine, May 2019
DOI 10.3390/jcm8050643
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ekaterina Krauss, Maike Froehler, Maria Degen, Poornima Mahavadi, Ruth C. Dartsch, Martina Korfei, Clemens Ruppert, Werner Seeger, Andreas Guenther

Abstract

Background: New biomarkers are urgently needed to facilitate diagnosis in Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD), thus reducing the need for invasive procedures, and to enable tailoring and monitoring of medical treatment. Methods: In this study we investigated if patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF; n = 21), non-IPF ILDs (n = 57) and other lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) n = 24, lung cancer (LC) n = 16) as well as healthy subjects (n = 20) show relevant differences in exhaled NO (FeNO; Niox MINO), or in eicosanoid (PGE2, 8-isoprostane; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)) levels as measured in exhaled breath condensates (EBC) and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF). Results: There was no significant difference in FeNO values between IPF, non-IPF ILDs and healthy subjects, although some individual patients showed highly elevated FeNO. On the basis of the FeNO signal, it was neither possible to differentiate between the kind of disease nor to detect exacerbations. In addition, there was no correlation between FeNO values and lung function. The investigation of the eicosanoids in EBCs was challenging (PGE2) or unreliable (8-isoprostane), but worked out well in BALF. A significant increase of free 8-isoprostane was observed in BALF, but not in EBCs, of patients with IPF, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and sarcoidosis, possibly indicating severity of oxidative stress. Conclusions: FeNO-measurements are not of diagnostic benefit in different ILDs including IPF. The same holds true for PGE2 and 8-isoprostane in EBC by ELISA.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
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 13 May 2019.
All research outputs
#18,681,024
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Medicine
#8,665
of 12,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,328
of 350,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Medicine
#271
of 460 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 350,863 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 460 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.