↓ Skip to main content

Bronchiectasis in PCD looks different to CF on CT scan

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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Bronchiectasis in PCD looks different to CF on CT scan
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40248-018-0139-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Robinson, Lucy Morgan

Abstract

The contemporary diagnosis of bronchiectasis requires CT scanning to describe specific structural lung changes. Scoring systems have been designed and validated in some specific causes of bronchiectasis to allow investigators to correlate CT changes with other indices of disease severity, to describe changes over time, with exacerbation and in response to treatment. Several scoring systems have been developed for CF including the Bhalla Score, Brody score, and the Helbich score. These scoring systems have also been applied to other causes of bronchiectasis including Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD). This assumes that the nature of structural lung disease in these conditions, as well as the rate and nature of longitudinal changes are identical to, or at least very similar to, those found in CF. This assumption has not been tested. The underlying pathophysiology of PCD is not the same as CF and may cause bronchiectasis that is radiologically similar but not necessarily the same as CF or any other cause of bronchiectasis. The development of a disease specific scoring system for structural change in cases of non-CF bronchiectasis due to any cause, would require consideration of the full range of changes seen in that condition without reference to changes seen in other conditions. We present a summary of structural findings that have been described in PCD and highlight the radiological differences between PCD and other causes of bronchiectasis. We suggest that a PCD specific CT scoring system is required to properly describe changes seen in PCD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 25%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 58%
Psychology 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#2,735,804
of 14,559,403 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#53
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,802
of 275,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,559,403 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 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 275,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.