↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of dyspnea in healthy subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Mechanisms of dyspnea in healthy subjects
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, June 2010
DOI 10.1186/2049-6958-5-3-195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Gigliotti

Abstract

Dyspnea is a general term used to characterize a range of different descriptors; it varies in intensity, and is influenced by a wide variety of factors such as cultural expectations and the patient's experiences. Healthy subjects can experience dyspnea in different situations, e.g. at high altitude, after breath-holding, during stressful situations that cause anxiety or panic, and more commonly during strenuous exercise. Discussing the mechanisms of dyspnea we need to briefly take into account the physiological mechanisms underlying the sensation of dyspnea: the functional status of the respiratory muscles, the role of chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors, and how the sense of respiratory motor output reaches a level of conscious awareness. We also need to take into account theories on the pathophysiological mechanisms of the sensation of dyspnea and the possibility that each pathophysiological mechanism produces a distinct quality of breathing discomfort. The terms used by subjects to identify different characteristics of breathing discomfort - dyspnea descriptors - may contribute to understanding the mechanisms of dyspnea and providing the rationale for a specific diagnosis.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Psychology 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 23 43%
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 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#142
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,180
of 103,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 103,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.