↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Update on therapeutic management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Update on therapeutic management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s69716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Argyris Tzouvelekis, Francesco Bonella, Paolo Spagnolo

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive diffuse parenchymal lung disease of unknown origin, with a mortality rate exceeding that of many cancers. The diagnostic process is complex and relies on the clinician integrating clinical, laboratory, radiological, and histological data. In the last decade, major advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of IPF have shifted the paradigm from a primarily inflammatory process evolving to fibrosis to a condition driven by aberrant wound healing following alveolar epithelial cell injury that results in scarring of the lung, architectural distortion, and irreversible loss of function. Improved understanding of disease pathogenesis has led to the identification of several therapeutic targets and the design of high-quality clinical trials evaluating novel compounds. However, the results of these studies have been mostly disappointing, probably due to the plethora of mediators, growth factors, and signaling pathways involved in the fibrotic process. Most recently, pirfenidone and nintedanib, two compounds with pleiotropic anti-fibrotic properties, have been proven effective in reducing functional decline and disease progression in IPF. This is a major breakthrough. Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go. In fact, neither pirfenidone nor nintedanib is a cure for IPF, and most patients continue to progress despite treatment. As such, comprehensive care of patients with IPF, including management of concomitant conditions and physical debility, as well as timely referral for lung transplantation, remains essential. Several agents with a high potential are currently being tested, and many more are ready for clinical trials. Their completion is critical for achieving the ultimate goal of curing patients with IPF.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 12 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#461
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,785
of 270,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 270,992 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.