↓ Skip to main content

Derivation and validation of clinical phenotypes for COPD: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Derivation and validation of clinical phenotypes for COPD: a systematic review
Published in
Respiratory Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12931-015-0208-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lancelot M Pinto, Majed Alghamdi, Andrea Benedetti, Tasneem Zaihra, Tara Landry, Jean Bourbeau

Abstract

The traditional classification of COPD, which relies solely on spirometry, fails to account for the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease. Phenotyping is a method that attempts to derive a single or combination of disease attributes that are associated with clinically meaningful outcomes. Deriving phenotypes entails the use of cluster analyses, and helps individualize patient management by identifying groups of individuals with similar characteristics. We aimed to systematically review the literature for studies that had derived such phenotypes using unsupervised methods. Two independent reviewers systematically searched multiple databases for studies that performed validated statistical analyses, free of definitive pre-determined hypotheses, to derive phenotypes among patients with COPD. Data were extracted independently. 9156 citations were retrieved, of which, 8 studies were included. The number of subjects ranged from 213 to 1543. Most studies appeared to be biased: patients were more likely males, with severe disease, and recruited in tertiary care settings. Statistical methods used to derive phenotypes varied by study. The number of phenotypes identified ranged from 2 to 5. Two phenotypes, with poor longitudinal health outcomes, were common across multiple studies: young patients with severe respiratory disease, few cardiovascular co-morbidities, poor nutritional status and poor health status, and a phenotype of older patients with moderate respiratory disease, obesity, cardiovascular and metabolic co-morbidities. The recognition that two phenotypes of COPD were often reported may have clinical implications for altering the course of the disease. This review also provided important information on limitations of phenotype studies in COPD and the need for improvement in future studies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 93 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 29 31%
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 21 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,499
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,651
of 279,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 279,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.