↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A case scenario study for the assessment of physician’s behavior in the management of COPD: the WHY study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2018
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 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
A case scenario study for the assessment of physician’s behavior in the management of COPD: the WHY study
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/copd.s154616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oguz Kilinc, Aylin Konya, Metin Akgun, Esra Uzaslan, Abdullah Sayiner

Abstract

COPD diagnosis is mainly based on clinical judgment of physicians. Physicians do not also refer to COPD guidelines in their daily practice. This study aimed to assess attitudes of physicians regarding COPD diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up and to identify the factors influencing physicians' decisions in clinical practice. Fifty physicians were selected from 12 EuroStat NUTS 2 regions and asked to assess seven fictitious case scenarios. The following five scenarios described patients with COPD: Case Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) A-smoker and Case GOLD A-nonsmoker were previously undiagnosed patients presenting with dyspnea, Case GOLD D-smoker and GOLD B-exsmoker were COPD patients presenting with exacerbation, Case GOLD B-smoker was a previously diagnosed COPD patient with dyspnea in stable phase, Case asthma-COPD overlap syndrome, and Case obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Patients' history, physical examination findings, pulmonary function tests, and X-ray images were prepared before the study by an experts' committee and provided to the physicians upon their request, until they reached a final decision. The physicians completed a questionnaire including information about their clinical practices and institutions. According to the GOLD 2015 recommendations, of the physicians, 44% performed guideline-concordant diagnosis in the first five scenarios, who were all COPD patients, and 6% performed guideline-concordant diagnosis in all cases. There was a negative correlation between high workload and making a guideline-concordant diagnosis (P=0.038, rho =-0.417). Even when the physicians made a guideline-concordant diagnosis of COPD, only a minority (10%-22%) used the GOLD classification. Logistic regression analysis revealed that working in a tertiary health care center was a significant factor in favor of establishing a guideline-concordant diagnosis of COPD (P=0.029, OR =6.139 [95% CI: 1.20-31.32]). Management of COPD patients in Turkey does not generally follow the GOLD criteria but is rather based on physicians' clinical experience. Heavy workload appears to adversely affect the correctness of clinical decisions.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Engineering 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,343
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,362
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#48
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 345,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.