↓ Skip to main content

Plugs of the Air Passages A Clinicopathologic Review

Overview of attention for article published in CHEST, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Plugs of the Air Passages A Clinicopathologic Review
Published in
CHEST, July 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.chest.2016.07.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanmay S. Panchabhai, Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, Sameep Sehgal, Debabrata Bandyopadhyay, Serpil C. Erzurum, Atul C. Mehta

Abstract

Although mucus is a normal product of the tracheobronchial tree, some diseases of the respiratory tract are characterized by unusually thick (inspissated) forms of mucus that accumulate within the airways. These are known as mucus plugs. The pathologic composition of these plugs is surprisingly diverse and, in many cases, correlates with distinctive clinical, radiologic, and bronchoscopic findings. The best-known conditions that involve mucus plugs are allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, plastic bronchitis, and asthma. Other lung diseases occasionally associated with plugs within the airways include Aspergillus tracheobronchitis, hyper-immunoglobulin E syndromes, exogenous lipoid pneumonia, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, and chronic eosinophilic pneumonia. In this review, we describe and illustrate the bronchoscopic, pathologic, and imaging findings in respiratory disorders characterized by mucus plugs or plugs composed of other similar materials. Recognition of the characteristic appearance and differential diagnosis of mucus plugs will hopefully facilitate diagnosis and management of these diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Other 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,660,035
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#3,637
of 13,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,355
of 377,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#42
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 377,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 55% of its contemporaries.