| Title |
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction by endobronchial valve in advanced emphysema: the first Asian report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s85744 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tai Sun Park, Yoonki Hong, Jae Seung Lee, Sang Young Oh, Sang Min Lee, Namkug Kim, Joon Beom Seo, Yeon-Mok Oh, Sang-Do Lee, Sei Won Lee |
| Abstract |
Endobronchial valve (EBV) therapy is increasingly being seen as a therapeutic option for advanced emphysema, but its clinical utility in Asian populations, who may have different phenotypes to other ethnic populations, has not been assessed. This prospective open-label single-arm clinical trial examined the clinical efficacy and the safety of EBV in 43 consecutive patients (mean age 68.4±7.5, forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] 24.5%±10.7% predicted, residual volume 208.7%±47.9% predicted) with severe emphysema with complete fissure and no collateral ventilation in a tertiary referral hospital in Korea. Compared to baseline, the patients exhibited significant improvements 6 months after EBV therapy in terms of FEV1 (from 0.68±0.26 L to 0.92±0.40 L; P<0.001), 6-minute walk distance (from 233.5±114.8 m to 299.6±87.5 m; P=0.012), modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (from 3.7±0.6 to 2.4±1.2; P<0.001), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (from 65.59±13.07 to 53.76±11.40; P=0.028). Nine patients (20.9%) had a tuberculosis scar, but these scars did not affect target lobe volume reduction or pneumothorax frequency. Thirteen patients had adverse events, ten (23.3%) developed pneumothorax, which included one death due to tension pneumothorax. EBV therapy was as effective and safe in Korean patients as it has been shown to be in Western countries. ( ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01869205). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 20% |
| Researcher | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Librarian | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,731
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,253
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#44
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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.