↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cardiopulmonary laboratory biomarkers in the evaluation of acute dyspnea

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Cardiopulmonary laboratory biomarkers in the evaluation of acute dyspnea
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s71446
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie R Stokes, Brett W Dietz, Jackson J Liang

Abstract

Dyspnea is a common chief complaint in the emergency department, with over 4 million visits annually in the US. Establishing the correct diagnosis can be challenging, because the subjective sensation of dyspnea can result from a wide array of underlying pathology, including pulmonary, cardiac, neurologic, psychiatric, toxic, and metabolic disorders. Further, the presence of dyspnea is linked with increased mortality in a variety of conditions, and misdiagnosis of the cause of dyspnea leads to poor patient-level outcomes. In combination with the history and physical, efficient, and focused use of laboratory studies, the various cardiopulmonary biomarkers can be useful in establishing the correct diagnosis and guiding treatment decisions in a timely manner. Use and interpretation of such tests must be guided by the clinical context, as well as an understanding of the current evidence supporting their use. This review discusses current standards and research regarding the use of established and emerging cardiopulmonary laboratory markers in the evaluation of acute dyspnea, focusing on recent evidence assessing the diagnostic and prognostic utility of various tests. These markers include brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone (NT-proBNP), mid-regional peptides proatrial NP and proadrenomedullin, cardiac troponins, D-dimer, soluble ST2, and galectin 3, and included is a discussion on the use of arterial and venous blood gases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,205,295
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#69
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,190
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.