↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness of lung ultrasound B-lines in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Usefulness of lung ultrasound B-lines in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease: a literature review
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13075-017-1409-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

YuKai Wang, Luna Gargani, Tatiana Barskova, Dan E. Furst, Marco Matucci Cerinic

Abstract

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a major pulmonary manifestation of connective tissue disease (CTD), leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is presently considered the diagnostic gold standard for pulmonary fibrosis diagnosis and quantification in the clinical arena. However, not negligible doses of ionizing radiation limit the use of HRCT, especially for serial follow-up in younger female patients. In the past decade, lung ultrasound (LUS) has been proposed to assess ILD by detecting and quantifying sonographic B-lines. Previous studies demonstrate that B-lines have a good diagnostic accuracy, especially high sensitivity, and correlate well with HRCT findings, suggesting LUS as a novel, non-invasive, and non-ionizing imaging method to be used in patients with CTD-ILD. Although preliminary data are promising, challenges and controversies still remain. For example, the mechanisms of B-line generation are not fully understood; the diagnostic accuracy and performance characteristics of LUS partially depend on the scanning scheme and scoring system used; and up-to-date B-lines cannot discriminate the early cellular inflammation from the chronic fibrotic phase in CTD-ILD. Therefore it is important for clinicians to understand the strengths and limitations of LUS in CTD-ILD patients, to maximize its value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 37 26%
Unknown 39 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Mathematics 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 50 36%
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 08 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,151,813
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,474
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,664
of 325,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#20
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 325,430 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.