↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis acute exacerbations - unravelling Ariadne's thread

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Clinical review: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis acute exacerbations - unravelling Ariadne's thread
Published in
Critical Care, December 2010
DOI 10.1186/cc9241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Spyros A Papiris, Effrosyni D Manali, Likurgos Kolilekas, Konstantinos Kagouridis, Christina Triantafillidou, Iraklis Tsangaris, Charis Roussos

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a dreadful, chronic, and irreversibly progressive fibrosing disease leading to death in all patients affected, and IPF acute exacerbations constitute the most devastating complication during its clinical course. IPF exacerbations are subacute/acute, clinically significant deteriorations of unidentifiable cause that usually transform the slow and more or less steady disease decline to the unexpected appearance of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) ending in death. The histological picture is that of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), which is the tissue counterpart of ARDS, upon usual interstitial pneumonia, which is the tissue equivalent of IPF. ALI/ARDS and acute interstitial pneumonia share with IPF exacerbations the tissue damage pattern of DAD. 'Treatment' with high-dose corticosteroids with or without an immunosuppressant proved ineffective and represents the coup de grace for these patients. Provision of excellent supportive care and the search for and treatment of the 'underlying cause' remain the only options. IPF exacerbations require rapid decisions about when and whether to initiate mechanical support. Admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) is a particular clinical and ethical challenge because of the extremely poor outcome. Transplantation in the ICU setting often presents insurmountable difficulties.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
France 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Postgraduate 14 17%
Other 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 72%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Mathematics 3 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 5 6%
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 16 December 2012.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,876
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,220
of 192,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#49
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 192,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.