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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Generic utilities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients stratified according to different staging systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-014-0120-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc Miravitlles, Alicia Huerta, José Alberto Fernández-Villar, Bernardino Alcázar, Guillermo Villa, Carles Forné, Maribel Cuesta, Carlos Crespo, Francisco García-Río |
| Abstract |
BackgroundTo determine generic utilities for Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients stratified by different classifications: GOLD 2007, GOLD 2013, GesEPOC 2012 and BODEx index.MethodsMulticentre, observational, cross-sectional study. Patients were aged ¿40 years, with spirometrically confirmed COPD. Utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3 L. Means, standard deviations (SD), medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were computed based on the different classifications. Differences in median utilities between groups were assessed by non-parametric tests.Results346 patients were included, of which 85.5% were male with a mean age of 67.9 (SD¿=¿9.7) years and a mean duration of COPD of 7.6 (SD¿=¿5.8) years; 80.3% were ex-smokers and the mean smoking history was 54.2 (SD¿=¿33.2) pack-years. Median utilities (IQR) by GOLD 2007 were 0.87 (0.22) for moderate; 0.80 (0.26) for severe and 0.67 (0.42) for very-severe patients (p¿<¿0.001 for all comparisons). Median utilities by GOLD 2013 were group A: 1.0 (0.09); group B: 0.87 (0.13); group C: 1.0 (0.16); group D: 0.74 (0.29); comparisons were statistically significant (p¿<¿0.001) except A vs C. Median utilities by GesEPOC phenotypes were 0.84 (0.33) for non exacerbator; 0.80 (0.26) for COPD-asthma overlap; 0.71 (0.62) for exacerbator with emphysema; 0.72 (0.57) for exacerbator with chronic bronchitis (p¿<¿0.001). Comparisons between patients with or without exacerbations and between patients with COPD-asthma overlap and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis were statistically-significant (p¿<¿0.001). Median utilities by BODEx index were: group 0¿2: 0.89 (0.20); group 3¿4: 0.80 (0.27); group 5¿6: 0.67 (0.29); group 7¿9: 0.41 (0.31). All comparisons were significant (p¿<¿0.001) except between groups 3¿4 and 5¿6.ConclusionIrrespective of the classification used utilities were associated to disease severity. Some clinical phenotypes were associated with worse utilities, probably related to a higher frequency of exacerbations. GOLD 2007 guidelines and BODEx index better discriminated patients with a worse health status than GOLD 2013 guidelines, while GOLD 2013 guidelines were better able to identify a smaller group of patients with the best health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 June 2022.
All research outputs
#4,666,388
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#586
of 2,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,217
of 238,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 238,742 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 90% of its contemporaries.