↓ Skip to main content

The definition and classification of pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Pneumonia, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 115)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
842 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
The definition and classification of pneumonia
Published in
Pneumonia, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41479-016-0012-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grant Mackenzie

Abstract

Following the publication of a volume of Pneumonia focused on diagnosis, the journal's Editorial Board members debated the definition and classification of pneumonia and came to a consensus on the need to revise both of these. The problem with our current approach to the classification of pneumonia is twofold: (i) it results in widespread empirical, and often unnecessary, use of antimicrobials that contributes to pathogen resistance; and (ii) it contributes to heterogeneity among the groups of subjects compared in research, causing misclassification bias and mixtures of effects that threaten internal validity. After outlining the problem of classification, this commentary describes the strengths and weaknesses of a range of systems for the classification of pneumonia. The commentary then calls for debate to generate consensus classifications in the field, proposing a working definition and way forward focusing on the following three points: (i) pneumonia should be defined as an acute infection of the lung parenchyma by various pathogens, excluding the condition of bronchiolitis; (ii) defining pneumonia as a group of specific (co)infections with different characteristics is an ideal that currently has limited use, because the identification of aetiologic organisms in individuals is often not possible (however, the benefits of classifying pneumonia into specific, more homogenous phenotypes should be carefully considered when designing research studies); and (iii) investigation of more homogenous pneumonia groupings is achievable and is likely to yield more rapid advances in the field.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 841 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 189 22%
Student > Master 58 7%
Student > Postgraduate 48 6%
Other 31 4%
Researcher 29 3%
Other 77 9%
Unknown 410 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 213 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 30 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 2%
Other 61 7%
Unknown 421 50%
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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,431,712
of 23,482,849 outputs
Outputs from Pneumonia
#11
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,530
of 345,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pneumonia
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,482,849 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 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 345,887 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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