↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and computed tomographic predictors of chronic bronchitis in COPD: a cross sectional analysis of the COPDGene study

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Clinical and computed tomographic predictors of chronic bronchitis in COPD: a cross sectional analysis of the COPDGene study
Published in
Respiratory Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-15-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Kim, Adam Davey, Alejandro P Comellas, Meilan K Han, George Washko, Carlos H Martinez, David Lynch, Jin Hwa Lee, Edwin K Silverman, James D Crapo, Barry J Make, Gerard J Criner

Abstract

Chronic bronchitis (CB) has been related to poor outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). From a clinical standpoint, we have shown that subjects with CB in a group with moderate to severe airflow obstruction were younger, more likely to be current smokers, male, Caucasian, had worse health related quality of life, more dyspnea, and increased exacerbation history compared to those without CB. We sought to further refine our clinical characterization of chronic bronchitics in a larger cohort and analyze the CT correlates of CB in COPD subjects. We hypothesized that COPD patients with CB would have thicker airways and a greater history of smoking, acute bronchitis, allergic rhinitis, and occupational exposures compared to those without CB.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 14 12%
Professor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 33 28%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 24 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,502,572
of 12,443,702 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#983
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,831
of 191,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,443,702 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 191,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.