↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the U.S. prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2010

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Estimating the U.S. prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2010
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-14-103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Tilert, Charles Dillon, Ryne Paulose-Ram, Eva Hnizdo, Brent Doney

Abstract

During 2007-2010, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted a spirometry component which obtained pre-bronchodilator pulmonary lung function data on a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 6-79 years and post-bronchodilator pulmonary lung function data for the subset of adults with airflow limitation. The goals of this study were to 1) compute prevalence estimates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using pre-bronchodilator and post-bronchodilator spirometry measurements and fixed ratio and lower limit of normal (LLN) diagnostic criteria and 2) examine the potential impact of nonresponse on the estimates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 21%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 22 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,891,320
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#200
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,254
of 177,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 177,719 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.