↓ Skip to main content

Categorizing diffuse parenchymal lung disease in children

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Categorizing diffuse parenchymal lung disease in children
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0339-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Griese, Armin Irnstetter, Meike Hengst, Helen Burmester, Felicitas Nagel, Jan Ripper, Maria Feilcke, Ingo Pawlita, Florian Gothe, Matthias Kappler, Andrea Schams, Traudl Wesselak, Daniela Rauch, Thomas Wittmann, Peter Lohse, Frank Brasch, Carolin Kröner

Abstract

Aim of this study was to verify a systematic and practical categorization system that allows dynamic classification of pediatric DPLD irrespective of completeness of patient data. The study was based on 2322 children submitted to the kids-lung-register between 1997 and 2012. Of these children 791 were assigned to 12 DPLD categories, more than 2/3 belonged to categories manifesting primarily in infancy. The work-flow of the pediatric DPLD categorization system included (i) the generation of a final working diagnosis, decision on the presence or absence of (ii) DPLD and (iii) a systemic or lung only condition, and (iv) the allocation to a category and subcategory. The validity and inter-observer dependency of this workflow was re-tested using a systematic sample of 100 cases. Two blinded raters allocated more than 80 % of the re-categorized cases identically. Non-identical allocation was due to lack of appreciation of all available details, insufficient knowledge of the classification rules by the raters, incomplete patient data, and shortcomings of the classification system itself. This study provides a suitable workflow and hand-on rules for the categorization of pediatric DPLD. Potential pitfalls were identified and a foundation was laid for the development of consensus-based, international categorization guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Other 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 57%
Unspecified 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 22%

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 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#9,945,316
of 12,423,017 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,141
of 1,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,934
of 247,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#40
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,423,017 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 1,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 247,411 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 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.