| Title |
Clinical utility of asthma biomarkers: from bench to bedside
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/btt.s29976 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susanne JH Vijverberg, Bart Hilvering, Jan AM Raaijmakers, Jan-Willem J Lammers, Anke-Hilse Maitland-van der Zee, Leo Koenderman |
| Abstract |
Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and recurrent episodes of reversible airway obstruction. The disease is very heterogeneous in onset, course, and response to treatment, and seems to encompass a broad collection of heterogeneous disease subtypes with different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. There is a strong need for easily interpreted clinical biomarkers to assess the nature and severity of the disease. Currently available biomarkers for clinical practice - for example markers in bronchial lavage, bronchial biopsies, sputum, or fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) - are limited due to invasiveness or lack of specificity. The assessment of markers in peripheral blood might be a good alternative to study airway inflammation more specifically, compared to FeNO, and in a less invasive manner, compared to bronchoalveolar lavage, biopsies, or sputum induction. In addition, promising novel biomarkers are discovered in the field of breath metabolomics (eg, volatile organic compounds) and (pharmaco)genomics. Biomarker research in asthma is increasingly shifting from the assessment of the value of single biomarkers to multidimensional approaches in which the clinical value of a combination of various markers is studied. This could eventually lead to the development of a clinically applicable algorithm composed of various markers and clinical features to phenotype asthma and improve diagnosis and asthma management. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 23% |
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,757,907
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#170
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,438
of 210,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 210,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.