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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Where do we stand with IPF treatment?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1465-9921-14-s1-s7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C Albera, C Ferrero, E Rindone, S Zanotto, E Rizza |
| Abstract |
Despite receiving 'weak no' recommendations in the updated guidelines on treating patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), two key treatment options are pirfenidone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and both are used in clinical practice. The efficacy of pirfenidone is supported by a number of Phase III trials as well as a Cochrane meta-analysis. Tolerability data are also provided by clinical trials and a long-term extension phase of these studies. Pirfenidone is approved in Europe for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate IPF. NAC-based therapy has no such approval, but is commonly used to treat patients. A Phase III trial suggested some benefit of the NAC, prednisone and azathioprine regimen for IPF patients, but the study had many limitations. A further study to investigate this regimen, compared with a placebo alone arm, was recently stopped due to increased mortality in the triple-therapy arm. Discussion of these data and recent findings highlight the importance of a further update to the existing guidelines, so that IPF specialists can provide the most up-to-date advice and treatment to patients in clinical practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2013.
All research outputs
#6,408,656
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#766
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,846
of 194,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 194,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.