↓ Skip to main content

COPD exacerbation: Lost in translation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
COPD exacerbation: Lost in translation
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2466-9-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Demosthenes Makris, Demosthenes Bouros

Abstract

The introduction and acceptance of a standard definition for exacerbations of COPD can be helpful in prompt diagnosis and management of these events. The latest GOLD executive committee recognised this necessity and it has now included a definition of exacerbation in the guidelines for COPD which is an important step forward in the management of the disease. This definition is pragmatic and compromises the different approaches for exacerbation. However, the inclusion of the "healthcare utilisation" approach (".. may warrant a change in regular medication") in the definition may introduce in the diagnosis of exacerbation factors related to the access to health care services which may not be related to the underlying pathophysiological process which characterizes exacerbations. It should be also noted that the aetiology of COPD exacerbations has not yet been included in the current definition. In this respect, the definition does not acknowledge the fact that many patients with COPD may suffer from additional conditions (i.e. congestive cardiac failure or pulmonary embolism) that can masquerade as exacerbations but they should not be considered as causes of them. The authors therefore suggest that an inclusion of the etiologic factors of COPD exacerbations in the definition. Moreover, COPD exacerbations are characterized by increased airway and systemic inflammation and significant deterioration in lung function. These fundamental aspects should be accounted in diagnosis/definition of exacerbations. This could be done by the introduction of a "laboratory" marker in the diagnosis of these acute events. The authors acknowledge that the use of a test or a biomarker in the diagnosis of exacerbations meets certain difficulties related to performing lung function tests or to sampling during exacerbations. However, the introduction of a test that reflects airway or systemic inflammation in the diagnosis of exacerbations might be another step forward in the management of COPD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 55%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Chemistry 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 3 8%
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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#579
of 1,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,904
of 171,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 171,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.