↓ Skip to main content

A literature review of the evidence that a 12% improvement in FEV1 is an appropriate cut-off for children

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
A literature review of the evidence that a 12% improvement in FEV1 is an appropriate cut-off for children
Published in
Journal of Asthma, January 2016
DOI 10.3109/02770903.2015.1108436
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A well-performed spirometry, using a change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after albuterol, is commonly used to support the likelihood of an asthma diagnosis. The current standard, accepted by the 2007 National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Asthma Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) guidelines, is a 12% improvement in the FEV1 after a bronchodilator. We sought to determine whether existing studies support or refute using a 12% improvement as a significant change in FEV1 in children and adolescents. We reviewed the literature of children and adolescents using Medline searches to discover pertinent population studies and comparative studies that included FEV1 measurements. The majority of the discovered studies suggest a less stringent improvement in FEV1 in children might be applicable. Supported by the published literature, we suggest an alternative interpretive strategy of expressing the results of a spirometry measurement when a diagnosis of asthma in a child is being considered using a bronchodilator response.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 4 15%
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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,354,849
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma
#1,458
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,884
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 394,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.