↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness of the second heart sound for predicting pulmonary hypertension in patients with interstitial lung disease.

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
Usefulness of the second heart sound for predicting pulmonary hypertension in patients with interstitial lung disease.
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.2015.00701207
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cobra, Sandra de Barros, Cardoso, Rayane Marques, Rodrigues, Marcelo Palmeira

Abstract

P2 hyperphonesis is considered to be a valuable finding in semiological diagnoses of pulmonary hypertension (PH). The aim here was to evaluate the accuracy of the pulmonary component of second heart sounds for predicting PH in patients with interstitial lung disease. Cross-sectional study at the University of Brasilia and Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal. Heart sounds were acquired using an electronic stethoscope and were analyzed using phonocardiography. Clinical signs suggestive of PH, such as second heart sound (S2) in pulmonary area louder than in aortic area; P2 > A2 in pulmonary area and P2 present in mitral area, were compared with Doppler echocardiographic parameters suggestive of PH. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp) and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were evaluated. There was no significant correlation between S2 or P2 amplitude and PASP (pulmonary artery systolic pressure) (P = 0.185 and 0.115; P= 0.13 and 0.34, respectively). Higher S2 in pulmonary area than in aortic area, compared with all the criteria suggestive of PH, showed S = 60%, Sp= 22%; LR+ = 0.7; LR- = 1.7; while P2> A2 showed S= 57%, Sp = 39%; LR+ = 0.9; LR- = 1.1; and P2 in mitral area showed: S= 68%, Sp = 41%; LR+ = 1.1; LR- = 0.7. All these signals together showed: S= 50%, Sp = 56%. The semiological signs indicative of PH presented low sensitivity and specificity levels for clinically diagnosing this comorbidity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 50%
Sports and Recreations 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,012,611
of 7,003,089 outputs
Outputs from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#47
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,312
of 316,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,003,089 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 316,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.