↓ Skip to main content

Why, when and how to investigate primary ciliary dyskinesia in adult patients with bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, August 2018
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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Why, when and how to investigate primary ciliary dyskinesia in adult patients with bronchiectasis
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40248-018-0143-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina Contarini, Amelia Shoemark, Jessica Rademacher, Simon Finch, Andrea Gramegna, Michele Gaffuri, Luca Roncoroni, Manuela Seia, Felix C. Ringshausen, Tobias Welte, Francesco Blasi, Stefano Aliberti, James D. Chalmers

Abstract

Bronchiectasis represents the final pathway of several infectious, genetic, immunologic or allergic disorders. Accurate and prompt identification of the underlying cause is a key recommendation of several international guidelines, in order to tailor treatment appropriately. Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetic cause of bronchiectasis in which failure of motile cilia leads to poor mucociliary clearance. Due to poor ciliary function in other organs, individuals can suffer from chronic rhinosinusitis, otitis media and infertility. This paper explores the current literature describing why, when and how to investigate PCD in adult patients with bronchiectasis. We describe the main PCD diagnostic tests and compare the two international PCD diagnostic guidelines. The expensive multi-test diagnostic approach requiring a high level of expertise and specialist equipment, make the multifaceted PCD diagnostic pathway complex. Therefore, the risk of late or missed diagnosis is high and has clinical and research implications. Defining the number of patients with bronchiectasis due to PCD is complex. To date, few studies outlining the aetiology of adult patients with bronchiectasis conduct screening tests for PCD, but they do differ in their diagnostic approach. Comparison of these studies reveals an estimated PCD prevalence of 1-13% in adults with bronchiectasis and describe patients as younger than their counterparts with moderate impairment of lung function and higher rates of chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagnosing PCD has clinical, socioeconomic and psychological implications, which affect patients' life, including the possibility to have a specific and multidisciplinary team approach in a PCD referral centre, as well as a genetic and fertility counselling and special legal aspects in some countries. To date no specific treatments for PCD have been approved, standardized diagnostic protocols for PCD and recent diagnostic guidelines will be helpful to accurately define a population on which planning RCT studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and accuracy of PCD specific treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 23 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,096,988
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#62
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,659
of 341,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 341,399 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.