↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Management strategies for pulmonary sarcoidosis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Management strategies for pulmonary sarcoidosis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2009
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s4511
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robina Kate Coker

Abstract

SARCOIDOSIS IS A SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATORY CONDITION WITH AN UNEXPLAINED PREDILECTION FOR THE LUNG: over 90% of patients have radiographic or physiological abnormalities. Respiratory physicians therefore often manage patients, but any organ may be involved, with noncaseating granulomas the characteristic feature. Sarcoidosis is the commonest interstitial lung disease (ILD), differing from most other ILDs in that many patients remain asymptomatic or improve spontaneously. Careful baseline assessment of disease distribution and severity is thus central to initial management. Subsequently, the unpredictable clinical course necessitates regular monitoring. Sarcoidosis occurs worldwide, with a high prevalence in Afro-Caribbeans and those of Swedish or Danish origin. African Americans also tend to have severe disease. Oral corticosteroids have been used since the 1950s, with evidence of short to medium response; more recent studies have examined the role of inhaled steroids. Long-term benefits of steroids remain uncertain. International guidelines published in 1999 represent a consensus view endorsed by North American and European respiratory societies. Updated British guidelines on interstitial lung disease, including sarcoidosis, were published in 2008. This review describes current management strategies for pulmonary disease, including oral and inhaled steroids, commonly used alternative immunosuppressant agents, and lung transplantation. Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors are briefly discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Other 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 23%
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 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,278,325
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#589
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,268
of 122,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 122,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.