↓ Skip to main content

“Any fool can make a rule and any fool will mind it”

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
“Any fool can make a rule and any fool will mind it”
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0562-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Athol U. Wells

Abstract

In principle, accurate guideline recommendations should lead to optimal management based on a secure diagnosis. However, current IPF diagnostic guidelines do not meet the needs of a major sub-group (possibly the majority) of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). A great many IPF patients have HRCT appearances of "possible UIP". A surgical biopsy is very often impracticable due to age, disease severity, co-morbidities or patient refusal. A guideline-based diagnosis cannot be made in these patients, although the diagnosis is often obvious. Inflexible diagnostic criteria, although essential for treatment trials, must necessarily be structured around an inflexible diagnostic algorithm. With this approach, non-standardised information (i.e. not available in all patients) must be omitted, including observed disease behaviour prior to and on treatment, findings on bronchoalveolar lavage, likelihoods in relation to age and a wealth of ancillary clinical information. However, when a diagnosis cannot be made using guideline criteria, a probable or highly probable "working diagnosis" of IPF can and should be made in most IPF patients by means of clinical reasoning, integrating all available non-standardised information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Tunisia 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 24%
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,710,927
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,394
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#339,548
of 402,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#56
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 402,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.