↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: current treatment options and critical appraisal of nintedanib

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: current treatment options and critical appraisal of nintedanib
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s76648
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Bonella, Susanne Stowasser, Lutz Wollin

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the most common type of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia and is characterized by a poor prognosis, with an estimated 5-year survival of approximately 20%. Progressive and irreversible lung functional impairment leads to chronic respiratory insufficiency with a severely impaired quality of life. In the last 2 decades, novel treatments for IPF have been developed as a consequence of an increasing understanding of disease pathogenesis and pathobiology. In IPF, injured dysfunctional alveolar epithelial cells promote fibroblast recruitment and proliferation, resulting in scarring of the lung tissue. Recently, pirfenidone and nintedanib have been approved for the treatment of IPF, having shown efficacy to slow functional decline and disease progression. This article focuses on the pharmacologic characteristics and clinical evidence supporting the use of nintedanib, a potent small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as therapy for IPF. After introducing the mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics, an overview of the safety and efficacy results from the most recent clinical trials of nintedanib in IPF is presented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Other 14 12%
Student > Master 14 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,822,610
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#85
of 2,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,481
of 397,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#4
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 397,435 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.