↓ Skip to main content

Interstitial lung diseases in the hospitalized patient

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Interstitial lung diseases in the hospitalized patient
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0487-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Supparerk Disayabutr, Carolyn S. Calfee, Harold R. Collard, Paul J. Wolters

Abstract

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are disorders of the lung parenchyma. The pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, and prognosis of ILDs vary depending on the underlying disease. The onset of most ILDs is insidious, but they may also present subacutely or require hospitalization for management. ILDs that may present subacutely include acute interstitial pneumonia, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, acute eosinophilic pneumonia, drug-induced ILDs, and acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Prognosis and response to therapy depend on the type of underlying ILD being managed. This opinion piece discusses approaches to differentiating ILDs in the hospitalized patient, emphasizing the role of bronchoscopy and surgical lung biopsy. We then consider pharmacologic treatments and the use of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with ILD. Finally, lung transplantation and palliative care as treatment modalities are considered. The diagnosis of ILD in hospitalized patients requires input from multiple disciplines. The prognosis of ILDs presenting acutely vary depending on the underlying ILD. Patients with advanced ILD or acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have poor outcomes. The mainstay treatment in these patients is supportive care, and mechanical ventilation should only be used in these patients as a bridge to lung transplantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,279,288
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,866
of 3,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,959
of 274,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#63
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 274,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.