↓ Skip to main content

The physiological basis and clinical significance of lung volume measurements

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 308)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
716 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 physiological basis and clinical significance of lung volume measurements
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40248-017-0084-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Faisal Lutfi

Abstract

From a physiological standpoint, the lung volumes are either dynamic or static. Both subclasses are measured at different degrees of inspiration or expiration; however, dynamic lung volumes are characteristically dependent on the rate of air flow. The static lung volumes/capacities are further subdivided into four standard volumes (tidal, inspiratory reserve, expiratory reserve, and residual volumes) and four standard capacities (inspiratory, functional residual, vital and total lung capacities). The dynamic lung volumes are mostly derived from vital capacity. While dynamic lung volumes are essential for diagnosis and follow up of obstructive lung diseases, static lung volumes are equally important for evaluation of obstructive as well as restrictive ventilatory defects. This review intends to update the reader with the physiological basis, clinical significance and interpretative approaches of the standard static lung volumes and capacities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 716 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 715 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 123 17%
Student > Master 65 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 5%
Other 37 5%
Researcher 37 5%
Other 97 14%
Unknown 319 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 5%
Engineering 26 4%
Other 86 12%
Unknown 336 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#991,285
of 25,489,496 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#16
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,536
of 425,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,489,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. 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 425,175 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 8 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