↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical update on the use of biomarkers of airway inflammation in the management of asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma and Allergy, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
Clinical update on the use of biomarkers of airway inflammation in the management of asthma
Published in
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, June 2011
DOI 10.2147/jaa.s15081
Pubmed ID
Authors

SJ Wadsworth, DD Sin, Dorscheid

Abstract

Biological markers are already used in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Biomarkers have great potential use in the clinic as a noninvasive means to make more accurate diagnoses, monitor disease progression, and create personalized treatment regimes. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with several different phenotypes, generally triggered by multiple gene-environment interactions. Pulmonary function tests are most often used objectively to confirm the diagnosis. However, airflow obstruction can be variable and thus missed using spirometry. Furthermore, lung function measurements may not reflect the precise underlying pathological processes responsible for different phenotypes. Inhaled corticosteroids and β(2)-agonists have been the mainstay of asthma therapy for over 30 years, but the heterogeneity of the disease means not all asthmatics respond to the same treatment. High costs and undesired side effects of drugs also drive the need for better targeted treatment of asthma. Biomarkers have the potential to indicate an individual's disease phenotype and thereby guide clinicians in their decisions regarding treatment. This review focuses on biomarkers of airway inflammation which may help us to identify, monitor, and guide treatment of asthmatics. We discuss biomarkers obtained from multiple physiological sources, including sputum, exhaled gases, exhaled breath condensate, serum, and urine. We discuss the inherent limitations and benefits of using biomarkers in a heterogeneous disease such as asthma. We also discuss how we may modify our study designs to improve the identification and potential use of potential biomarkers in asthma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 112 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Other 15 12%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 5%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 25 20%
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 04 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#280
of 543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,298
of 122,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 122,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them