| Title |
Overlaps and uncertainties of smoking-related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s146899 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
So Hyeon Bak, Ho Yun Lee |
| Abstract |
Smoking-related interstitial lung disease (ILD) consists of a heterogeneous group of disorders that are considered a distinct entity. The 2013 American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society recommendations classified respiratory bronchiolitis (RB)/RB-ILD and desquamative interstitial pneumonia (DIP) as smoking-related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs). The overlapping histopathological and radiological patterns of smoking-related IIPs must be considered. Overlap patterns of smoking-related IIPs are not easily classified as a single disorder. The initial radiological manifestation and follow-up changes are heterogeneous, even when diagnosed pathologically as RB or DIP. Therefore, a clinical-radiological-pathological consensus is important in the diagnosis of smoking-related IIPs, and long-term evaluation is essential to monitor the morphological changes in these patients. In this article, we reviewed the clinical, radiological, and pathological findings, and also the changes in radiological manifestations of smoking-related IIPs over time. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 13 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,614
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,464
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#44
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.