↓ Skip to main content

Transplant Pulmonary Interventions: Translating Lung Transplant Interventions to Nontransplant Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 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.
Article details
Title
Transplant Pulmonary Interventions: Translating Lung Transplant Interventions to Nontransplant Patients
Published in
Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, December 2016
DOI 10.14797/mdcj-12-4s1-18
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Roughly 10% of lung transplant recipients experience airway complications. Although the incidence has decreased dramatically since the first lung transplants were performed in the 1960s, airway complications have continued to adversely affect outcomes. Bronchoscopic interventions such as balloon dilation, airway stenting, and endobronchial electrocautery play an important role in ameliorating the morbidity and mortality associated with these complications. This review describes the array of bronchoscopic interventions used to treat airway complications after lung transplant and how these techniques can be used in nontransplant settings as well.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Student > Master 3 19%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal
#233
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,912
of 416,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 416,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.