↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pleural effusion: diagnosis, treatment, and management

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 231)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
942 Mendeley
Title
Pleural effusion: diagnosis, treatment, and management
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, June 2012
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s29942
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinaya S Karkhanis, Jyotsna M Joshi

Abstract

A pleural effusion is an excessive accumulation of fluid in the pleural space. It can pose a diagnostic dilemma to the treating physician because it may be related to disorders of the lung or pleura, or to a systemic disorder. Patients most commonly present with dyspnea, initially on exertion, predominantly dry cough, and pleuritic chest pain. To treat pleural effusion appropriately, it is important to determine its etiology. However, the etiology of pleural effusion remains unclear in nearly 20% of cases. Thoracocentesis should be performed for new and unexplained pleural effusions. Laboratory testing helps to distinguish pleural fluid transudate from an exudate. The diagnostic evaluation of pleural effusion includes chemical and microbiological studies, as well as cytological analysis, which can provide further information about the etiology of the disease process. Immunohistochemistry provides increased diagnostic accuracy. Transudative effusions are usually managed by treating the underlying medical disorder. However, a large, refractory pleural effusion, whether a transudate or exudate, must be drained to provide symptomatic relief. Management of exudative effusion depends on the underlying etiology of the effusion. Malignant effusions are usually drained to palliate symptoms and may require pleurodesis to prevent recurrence. Pleural biopsy is recommended for evaluation and exclusion of various etiologies, such as tuberculosis or malignant disease. Percutaneous closed pleural biopsy is easiest to perform, the least expensive, with minimal complications, and should be used routinely. Empyemas need to be treated with appropriate antibiotics and intercostal drainage. Surgery may be needed in selected cases where drainage procedure fails to produce improvement or to restore lung function and for closure of bronchopleural fistula.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 942 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 940 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 202 21%
Student > Postgraduate 75 8%
Student > Master 66 7%
Other 50 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 4%
Other 96 10%
Unknown 412 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 334 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 78 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 2%
Other 47 5%
Unknown 426 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 18 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,358,421
of 25,515,042 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#5
of 231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,481
of 179,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,515,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 179,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them