↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Overlaps and uncertainties of smoking-related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, November 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
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%

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
#8,745,359
of 14,493,276 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,060
of 1,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,969
of 403,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#36
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,493,276 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 1,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 403,216 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 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.