↓ Skip to main content

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: diagnostic pitfalls and therapeutic challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, November 2012
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

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: diagnostic pitfalls and therapeutic challenges
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/2049-6958-7-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Spagnolo, Roberto Tonelli, Elisabetta Cocconcelli, Alessandro Stefani, Luca Richeldi

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), the most common of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, is a devastating condition that carries a prognosis worse than that of many cancers. As such, it represents one of the most challenging diseases for chest physicians. The diagnostic process is complex and relies on the clinician integrating clinical, laboratory, radiologic, and/or pathologic data. Therefore, a close collaboration between chest physicians, radiologists, and pathologists experienced in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) is necessary in order to minimize diagnostic uncertainty. Similarly, the management of IPF continues to pose major difficulties. However, while there are no proven effective therapies for IPF beyond lung transplantation, recent trials of novel agents suggest that pharmacological treatment may retard the progression of the disease. In this regard, enrolment of patients into clinical trials is considered the "best current practice"by the most recent guidelines as it offers IPF patients the chance to receive new agents that may be more effective than current therapies. A more recent trend focusing on improving quality of life in IPF patients has also been gaining ground.The diagnosis and management of IPF remains a constant challenge for even the most experienced of clinicians. However, a multidisciplinary approach to this complex disease is steadily improving diagnostic accuracy, while recent advances in the pharmacological therapy offer the genuine promise of future treatments for this devastating disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#124
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,839
of 193,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 54% 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 193,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.