↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism: a multidisciplinary approach

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism: a multidisciplinary approach
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2049-6958-8-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Lavorini, Vitantonio Di Bello, Maria Luisa De Rimini, Giovanni Lucignani, Letizia Marconi, Gualtiero Palareti, Raffaele Pesavento, Domenico Prisco, Massimo Santini, Nicola Sverzellati, Antonio Palla, Massimo Pistolesi

Abstract

The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently considered in patients presenting to the emergency department or when hospitalized. Although early treatment is highly effective, PE is underdiagnosed and, therefore, the disease remains a major health problem. Since symptoms and signs are non specific and the consequences of anticoagulant treatment are considerable, objective tests to either establish or refute the diagnosis have become a standard of care. Diagnostic strategy should be based on clinical evaluation of the probability of PE. The accuracy of diagnostic tests for PE are high when the results are concordant with the clinical assessment. Additional testing is necessary when the test results are inconsistent with clinical probability. The present review article represents the consensus-based recommendations of the Interdisciplinary Association for Research in Lung Disease (AIMAR) multidisciplinary Task Force for diagnosis and treatment of PE. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians a practical diagnostic and therapeutic management approach using evidence from the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 164 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 18%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 49 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 54 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,119,409
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#95
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,082
of 320,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 320,503 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.