↓ Skip to main content

COPD diagnosis related to different guidelines and spirometry techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
14 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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 diagnosis related to different guidelines and spirometry techniques
Published in
Respiratory Research, December 2007
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-8-89
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lennart Nathell, Madelene Nathell, Per Malmberg, Kjell Larsson

Abstract

The aim was to compare the diagnosis of COPD among smokers according to different international guidelines and to compare the outcome when using slow (SVC) and forced vital capacity (FVC). In order to find current smokers a questionnaire was sent to persons who had been on sick leave for more than two weeks. Those who smoked more than 8 cigarettes per day were invited to perform a spirometry. Totally 3,887 spirometries were performed. In this sample 10.2% fulfilled the NICE COPD-criteria, 14.0% the GOLD COPD-criteria and 21.7% the ERS COPD criteria. The diagnosis according to NICE and GOLD guidelines is based on FVC and in the ERS guidelines the best value of either SVC or FVC is used. Thus, substantially more subjects with COPD were found when the best of either SVC or FVC was used. Forced VC tended to be higher than SVC when lung function was normal and in those with mild obstruction prior to bronchodilatation whereas SVC exceeded FVC after bronchodilatation in those who had severe bronchial obstruction.The diagnosis of COPD is highly depending on which guidelines are used for defining the disease. If FVC and not the best of SVC and FVC is used when defining COPD the diagnosis will be missed in a substantial number of patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
India 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 92 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 24 24%
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 25 November 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,153
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,403
of 166,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 166,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.