↓ Skip to main content

Differences in fungi present in induced sputum samples from asthma patients and non-atopic controls: a community based case control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2013
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Differences in fungi present in induced sputum samples from asthma patients and non-atopic controls: a community based case control study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo Cornelis van Woerden, Clive Gregory, Richard Brown, Julian Roberto Marchesi, Bastiaan Hoogendoorn, Ian Price Matthews

Abstract

There is emerging evidence for the presence of an extensive microbiota in human lungs. It is not known whether variations in the prevalence of species of microbiota in the lungs may have aetiological significance in respiratory conditions such as asthma. The aim of the study was to undertake semi-quantitative analysis of the differences in fungal species in pooled sputum samples from asthma patients and controls.

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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 126 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 23%
Researcher 29 22%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 11%
Environmental Science 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 18 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,393,557
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#320
of 7,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,167
of 282,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,644 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 95% 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 282,906 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 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.