↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Bronchiectasis in COPD patients: more than a comorbidity?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Bronchiectasis in COPD patients: more than a comorbidity?
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s132961
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Angel Martinez-Garcia, Marc Miravitlles

Abstract

Computed tomography scan images have been used to identify different radiological COPD phenotypes based on the presence and severity of emphysema, bronchial wall thickening, and bronchiectasis. Bronchiectasis is defined as an abnormal dilation of the bronchi, usually as a result of chronic airway inflammation and/or infection. The prevalence of bronchiectasis in patients with COPD is high, especially in advanced stages. The identification of bronchiectasis in COPD has been defined as a different clinical COPD phenotype with greater symptomatic severity, more frequent chronic bronchial infection and exacerbations, and poor prognosis. A causal association has not yet been proven, but it is biologically plausible that COPD, and particularly the infective and exacerbator COPD phenotypes, could be the cause of bronchiectasis without any other known etiology, beyond any mere association or comorbidity. The study of the relationship between COPD and bronchiectasis could have important clinical implications, since both diseases have different and complementary therapeutic approaches. Longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the development of bronchiectasis in COPD, and clinical trials with treatments aimed at reducing bacterial loads should be conducted to investigate their impact on the reduction of exacerbations and improvements in the long-term evolution of the disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 47 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 52 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,755,994
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#748
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,463
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#24
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 324,557 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.