↓ Skip to main content

Small airways disease: time for a revisit?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2017
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
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Small airways disease: time for a revisit?
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s138540
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Stockley, Brendan Cooper, Robert Stockley, Elizabeth Sapey

Abstract

It is increasingly acknowledged that delays in the diagnosis of chronic inflammatory lung conditions have hampered our understanding of pathogenesis and thus our ability to design efficacious therapies. This is particularly true for COPD, where most patients are diagnosed with moderate-to-severe airflow obstruction and little is known about the inflammatory processes present in early disease. There is great interest in developing screening tests that can identify those most at risk of developing COPD before airflow obstruction has developed for the purpose of research and clinical care. Landmark pathology studies have suggested that damage to the small airways precedes the development of airflow obstruction and emphysema and, thus, presents an opportunity to identify those at risk of COPD. However, despite a number of physiological tests being available to assess small airways function, none have been adopted into routine care in COPD. The reasons that tests of small airways have not been utilized widely include variability in test results and a lack of validated reference ranges from which to compare results for some methodologies. Furthermore, population studies have not consistently demonstrated their ability to diagnose disease. However, the landscape may be changing. As the equipment that delivers tests of small airways become more widely available, reference ranges are emerging and newer methodologies specifically seek to address variability and difficulty in test performance. Moreover, there is evidence that while tests of small airways may not be helpful across the full range of established disease severity, there may be specific groups (particularly those with early disease) where they might be informative. In this review, commonly utilized tests of small airways are critically appraised to highlight why these tests may be important, how they can be used and what knowledge gaps remain for their use in COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Postgraduate 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 38%

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 13 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,951,544
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,469
of 2,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,314
of 317,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#45
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 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 2,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 317,444 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 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.