↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with lung cancer: prevalence, impact and management challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with lung cancer: prevalence, impact and management challenges
Published in
Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/lctt.s117178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dionisios Spyratos, Eleni Papadaki, Sofia Lampaki, Theodoros Kontakiotis

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer share a common etiological factor (cigarette smoking) and usually coexist in everyday clinical practice. The prevalence of COPD among newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer sometimes exceeds 50%. COPD is an independent risk factor (2-4 times higher than non-COPD subjects) for lung cancer development. The presence of emphysema in addition to other factors (e.g., smoking history, age) could be incorporated into risk scores in order to define the most appropriate target group for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Clinical management of patients with coexistence of COPD and lung cancer requires a multidisciplinary oncology board that includes a pulmonologist. Detailed evaluation (lung function tests, cardiopulmonary exercise test) and management (inhaled drugs, smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation) of COPD should be taken into account for lung cancer treatment (surgical approach, radiotherapy).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#58
of 128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,595
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 327,503 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.