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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Highlights of HRCT imaging in IPF
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1465-9921-14-s1-s3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N Sverzellati |
| Abstract |
High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging has a central role in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases, particularly in the evaluation of patients with suspected idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In approximately half of cases, HRCT scans are sufficient to allow a confident IPF diagnosis. Advances in HRCT scanning and interpretation have facilitated improved accuracy for use in diagnosing IPF, eliminating the need for a surgical biopsy in many patients. HRCT may also have a role to play in predicting the prognosis of the disease;. The role of routine follow-up with HRCT to monitor patients with IPF remains unclear due to lack of sufficient evidence, although, sometimes follow-up HRCT might be necessary to rule out progressive disease in patients with undetermined diagnosis. Advances in the field of HRCT imaging are discussed, along with insights into the clinical utility of this procedure in the diagnosis and management of IPF. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 47% |
| Engineering | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,549,539
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#449
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,616
of 194,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 194,546 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 85% 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.