↓ Skip to main content

Role of bronchoalveolar lavage in the diagnosis of acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Role of bronchoalveolar lavage in the diagnosis of acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0066-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frunze Petrosyan, Daniel A. Culver, Anita J. Reddy

Abstract

It has been recognized that despite previous stability some patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) experience acute clinical deteriorations called acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AEX-IPF). We hypothesized that pulmonary infection can be excluded based on clinical and laboratory data and that bronchoscopy with BAL is not mandatory in the diagnostic work-up of suspected AEX-IPF. In this retrospective study we identified patients with acute respiratory failure who were evaluated for AEX-IPF at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2002 and December 2011. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed with predefined risk factors and final diagnosis of AEX-IPF and pulmonary infection. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05. A total of 77 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Of these patients 47 (61 %) were diagnosed with AEX-IPF. Bronchoscopy was more likely to be performed in patients who were on cytotoxic medications (p < 0.05). In most cases the diagnosis of AEX-IPF versus pulmonary infection was based on combination of other microbiological, clinical, radiologic data and clinical judgment. A total of 10 patients out of 14 (71 %) with a final diagnosis of pulmonary infection were on steroids on admission versus 21 out of 63 patients (33 %) with other final diagnosis (p = 0.024, OR 7.817, 95 % CI 1.31-46.64). Exclusion of infection in our IPF patient cohort was mostly based on factors other than diagnostic bronchoscopy with BAL. Based on our results we suggested an algorithm for management of IPF patients presenting with acute respiratory failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,694
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,375
of 1,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,273
of 262,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 262,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.