↓ Skip to main content

The geriatric asthma: pitfalls and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Asthma Research and Practice, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
The geriatric asthma: pitfalls and challenges
Published in
Asthma Research and Practice, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40733-015-0018-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alida Benfante, Nicola Scichilone

Abstract

Historically, asthma has been envisioned as a disease of younger ages. This has led to the assumption that respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma occurring in older ages are to be attributed to conditions other than asthma, mainly COPD. Old observational reports and new epidemiological studies confirm that asthma is as frequent in older as it is in younger populations. Nevertheless, under-recognition, misdiagnosis and under-treatment are still relevant issues. The characterization of asthma in the aged suffers from the fact that there has been very little original research in this field. Indeed, geriatric asthma is often excluded from clinical trials because of age and comorbidities. The current review paper revises the areas that need to be elucidated, and highlights the gaps in the management of this condition. It follows that a multidimensional management is advocated for elderly asthmatics to evaluate the severity and establish the complexity of the disease. We suggest that the term "geriatric" asthma should be preferred to "senile" asthma, which is confined to the age-related changes in the lung, or the more generic "asthma in the elderly", which is only descriptive of the prevalence in specific age groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,243,953
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Asthma Research and Practice
#66
of 81 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,638
of 393,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Asthma Research and Practice
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 81 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 393,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.