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 |
Proceedings of the 2nd BEAT-PCD conference and 3rd PCD training school: part 1
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Proceedings, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12919-018-0098-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian Halbeisen, Claire Hogg, Mikkel C. Alanin, Zuzanna Bukowy-Bieryllo, Francisco Dasi, Julie Duncan, Amanda Friend, Myrofora Goutaki, Claire Jackson, Victoria Keenan, Amanda Harris, Robert A. Hirst, Philipp Latzin, Gemma Marsh, Kim Nielsen, Dominic Norris, Daniel Pellicer, Ana Reula, Bruna Rubbo, Nisreen Rumman, Amelia Shoemark, Woolf T. Walker, Claudia E. Kuehni, Jane S. Lucas |
| Abstract |
Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare heterogenous condition that causes progressive suppurative lung disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, infertility and abnormal situs. 'Better Experimental Approaches to Treat Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia' (BEAT-PCD) is a network of scientists and clinicians coordinating research from basic science through to clinical care with the intention of developing treatments and diagnostics that lead to improved long-term outcomes for patients. BEAT-PCD activities are supported by EU funded COST Action (BM1407). The second BEAT-PCD conference, and third PCD training school were held jointly in April 2017 in Valencia, Spain. Presentations and workshops focussed on advancing the knowledge and skills relating to PCD in: basic science, epidemiology, diagnostic testing, clinical management and clinical trials. The multidisciplinary conference provided an interactive platform for exchanging ideas through a program of lectures, poster presentations, breakout sessions and workshops. Three working groups met to plan consensus statements. Progress with BEAT-PCD projects was shared and new collaborations were fostered. In this report, we summarize the meeting, highlighting developments made during the meeting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,164,620
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#204
of 379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,046
of 332,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 379 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 332,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them