↓ Skip to main content

Supplemental oxygen users with pulmonary fibrosis perceive greater dyspnea than oxygen non-users

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Supplemental oxygen users with pulmonary fibrosis perceive greater dyspnea than oxygen non-users
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40248-015-0035-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mengshu Cao, Frederick S. Wamboldt, Kevin K. Brown, Jonathon Hickman, Amy L. Olson, Joshua J. Solomon, Jeffrey J. Swigris

Abstract

Exertional dyspnea is a hallmark symptom of fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD), and oxygen (O2) desaturation is common among patients with fILD. Supplemental O2 is prescribed to maintain normoxia and alleviate dyspnea. We sought to better understand the associations between O2 and dyspnea in fILD during the 6-min walk test (6MWT). 1326 fILD patients compose the sample group. Borg dyspnea and other 6MWT variables were compared between subjects who performed the test without (non-users) versus with O2 (users). There were 812 users and 514 non-users; users were older, more likely to have smoked, had greater body mass index, and had more severe fILD. Despite a similar 6-min SpO2, users perceived greater dyspnea than non-users (Borg 3.9 ± 2.0 vs 2.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.0001). Whether subjects became hypoxemic (6-min SpO2 < 89 %) or not during the walk, the results were the same: users perceived greater dyspnea than non-users (hypoxemic: users 3.5 ± 2.1 vs non-users 2.7 ± 1.8, p < 0.0001; non-hypoxemic: users 3.4 ± 1.9 vs non-users 2.4 ± 1.6, p < 0.0001). Among subjects who did not desaturate (SpO2 drop < 4 %), users walked a shorter distance (944.9 ± 367.0 vs 1385.3 ± 322.4 feet, p < 0.0001) but perceived greater dyspnea than non-users (3.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.7, p = 0.005). No combination of potentially influential predictor variables entered in multivariate models explained more than 11 % of the variance in dyspnea ratings. Dyspnea is a complex perception, and in patients with fILD, O2 may lessen, but does not resolve, it. Further research is needed to clarify why fILD patients who use O2 perceive greater levels of dyspnea with activity than O2 non-users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Chemistry 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,388,865
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#140
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,852
of 395,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 395,377 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.