↓ Skip to main content

Asthma under/misdiagnosis in primary care setting: an observational community-based study in Italy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Molecular Allergy, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 216)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Asthma under/misdiagnosis in primary care setting: an observational community-based study in Italy
Published in
Clinical and Molecular Allergy, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12948-015-0032-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Sandra Magnoni, Marco Caminati, Gianenrico Senna, Fabio Arpinelli, Andrea Rizzi, Anna Rita Dama, Michele Schiappoli, Germano Bettoncelli, Gaetano Caramori

Abstract

Published data suggest that asthma is significantly under/misdiagnosed. The present community-based study performed in Italy aims at investigating the level of asthma under/misdiagnosis among patients referring to the General Practitioner (GP) for respiratory symptoms and undergoing Inhaled corticosteroids. A sub-analysis of a previously published observational cross-sectional study has been provided. It included subjects registered in the GP databases with at least three prescriptions of inhaled or nebulised corticosteroids during the 12 months preceding the start of the study. All subjects, independently of the diagnosis, were invited to visit their GP's office for a standardised interview and to fill the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) questionnaire. The studies involved 540 GPs in most of the Italian regions and 2090 subjects (mean age 54.9 years, 54.1 % females) were enrolled. Among them 991 cases of physician-diagnosed asthma were observed while 1099 subjects received a diagnosis other than asthma (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic upper respiratory tract infections etc.). Among the lasts, the ECRHS questionnaire was suggestive for asthma diagnosis in 365 subjects (33.2 %). The data suggest that there is still a large under/misdiagnosis of asthma in the Italian primary care setting, despite the spread of GINA guidelines nearly 20 years before this study. A validated tool like the ECRHS questionnaire has detected a considerable proportion of potentially asthmatic patients who should be addressed to lung function assessment to confirm the diagnosis. Further educational efforts directed to the GPs are needed to improve their diagnosis of asthma (SAM104964).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,420,882
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#15
of 216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,970
of 275,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 275,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them