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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Endosonography vs Conventional Bronchoscopy for the Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis: The GRANULOMA Randomized Clinical Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2013.5823 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin B. von Bartheld, Olaf M. Dekkers, Artur Szlubowski, Ralf Eberhardt, Felix J. Herth, Johannes C. C. M. in ‘t Veen, Ynze P. de Jong, Erik H. F. M. van der Heijden, Kurt G. Tournoy, Martin Claussen, Bernt van den Blink, Pallav L. Shah, Zaid Zoumot, Paul Clementsen, Celeste Porsbjerg, Thais Mauad, Fabiola D. Bernardi, Erik W. van Zwet, Klaus F. Rabe, Jouke T. Annema |
| Abstract |
Tissue verification of noncaseating granulomas is recommended for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsies, the current diagnostic standard, has moderate sensitivity in assessing granulomas. Endosonography with intrathoracic nodal aspiration appears to be a promising diagnostic technique. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kuwait | 2 | 10% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Japan | 2 | 10% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 65% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 07 January 2014.
All research outputs
#1,272,276
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#9,729
of 36,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,383
of 209,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#99
of 306 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 209,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 306 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.