↓ Skip to main content

Usual interstitial pneumonia coexisted with nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, What’s the diagnosis?

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Usual interstitial pneumonia coexisted with nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, What’s the diagnosis?
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-7-167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xia Fang, Benfang Luo, Xianghua Yi, Yu Zeng, Fang Liu, Huiping Li, Pan Gu, Xuyou Zhu, Suxia Zhang, Gelin Jiang

Abstract

The differential diagnosis between idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia(INSIP) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis(IPF)/usual interstitial pneumonia(UIP)is tough in both clinicians and pathologists. In this study, we analyzed the lesions of right lung removed from a 58-year-old patient by gross and microscopy. The results showed that the pathological appearance of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) and UIP coexisted in his upper lobe. Besides, because of severe fibrosis in middle and lower lobes, it was hard to distinguish the lesions of NSIP fibrotic pattern (NSIP-F) or UIP. Based on clinic-radiologic-pathological data, the diagnosis of INSIP-F was made for this patient finally. Our study suggests that UIP is not always an accurate diagnosis when the NSIP and UIP coexist, and NSIP can have regions of UIP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Neuroscience 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,321,703
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#756
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,567
of 277,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 277,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.