↓ Skip to main content

Drug-induced interstitial lung disease: mechanisms and best diagnostic approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
218 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Drug-induced interstitial lung disease: mechanisms and best diagnostic approaches
Published in
Respiratory Research, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-13-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osamu Matsuno

Abstract

Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DILD) is not uncommon and has many clinical patterns, ranging from benign infiltrates to life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome. There are two mechanisms involved in DILD, which are probably interdependent: one is direct, dose-dependent toxicity and the other is immune-mediated. Cytotoxic lung injury may result from direct injury to pneumocytes or the alveolar capillary endothelium. Drugs can induce all types of immunological reactions described by Gell and Coombs; however, most reactions in immune-mediated DILD may be T cell-mediated. DILD can be difficult to diagnose; diagnosis is often possible by exclusion alone. Identifying the causative drug that induces an allergy or cytotoxicity is essential for preventing secondary reactions. One method to confirm the diagnosis of a drug-induced disease is re-exposure or re-test of the drug. However, clinicians are reluctant to place patients at further risk of illness, particularly in cases with severe drug-induced diseases. Assessment of cell-mediated immunity has recently increased, because verifying the presence or absence of drug-sensitized lymphocytes can aid in confirmation of drug-induced disease. Using peripheral blood samples from drug-allergic patients, the drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) and the leukocyte migration test (LMT) can detect the presence of drug-sensitized T cells. However, these tests do not have a definite role in the diagnosis of DILD. This study explores the potential of these new tests and other similar tests in the diagnosis of DILD and provides a review of the relevant literature on this topic.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iceland 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 176 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 15%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Master 14 8%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 51 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 59 33%
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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,499
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,721
of 179,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#10
of 17 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 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 179,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.