↓ Skip to main content

A need to reconsider guidelines on management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
A need to reconsider guidelines on management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax?
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12245-017-0135-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiyoon Yoon, Parthipan Sivakumar, Kevin O’Kane, Liju Ahmed, Jiyoon Yoon, Parthipan Sivakumar, Kevin O’Kane, Liju Ahmed

Abstract

The key guidelines in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) include the 2010 British Thoracic Society (BTS) Pleural Disease guideline and 2001 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Consensus Statement. Current recommendations are dependent on radiographic measures which differ between these two guidelines. The aim of this study is to compare size classification of PSP cases, according to BTS and ACCP guidelines, and to evaluate guideline compliance. We conducted a retrospective evaluation of all PSP episodes presenting to St Thomas' Hospital, London, between February 2013 and December 2014. Data was recorded from review of chest X-rays and patient records. Eighty-seven episodes of PSP in 72 patients were identified (median age 25 years, IQR 22-32.25). Classification of "large" and "small" showed the greatest disparity in those managed conservatively (12/27, 44%) or with aspiration only (11/23, 48%). In this UK study, BTS guidelines were followed in 70% of episodes with adherence to ACCP guidelines in 32% of episodes. There is a poor agreement in size classification between BTS and ACCP guidelines, resulting in conflicting recommendations for management of PSP. Robust clinical trial evidence is required to achieve international consensus on the management of PSP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 24%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,722,360
of 11,655,615 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#103
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,926
of 264,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,655,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 264,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.