↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patient considerations and drug selection in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Patient considerations and drug selection in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s81144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria A Trawinska, Ruwani D Rupesinghe, Simon P Hart

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial lung disease of unknown cause. Approximately 5,000 people are diagnosed with IPF in the UK every year. People with IPF suffer significant morbidity and, without any curative treatment at present, survival rates remain poor with a median survival of 3 years. While treatment remains largely supportive, many drug therapies have been trialed in IPF over the years. Pirfenidone and nintedanib are newly licensed treatments for IPF and the first drugs to have shown convincing evidence of slowing disease progression. In addition to evaluating clinical evidence, we also discuss elements affecting drug choice from the viewpoint of patients and health care professionals. We discuss pharmacological and nonpharmacological aspects of providing best supportive care for patients with IPF. However, few good quality studies exist focusing on controlling symptoms specifically in patients with IPF, and recommendations are often extrapolated from evidence in other chronic diseases. In covering these topics, we hope to provide readers with a comprehensive review of the available evidence pertaining to all aspects of care for patients suffering with IPF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,929,948
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#81
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,529
of 314,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 314,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 96% of its contemporaries.