↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory System Diseases

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 208: Small Airway Obstruction in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Potential Parameters for Early Detection
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 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.
Chapter title
Small Airway Obstruction in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Potential Parameters for Early Detection
Chapter number 208
Book title
Respiratory System Diseases
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/5584_2016_208
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-959497-2, 978-3-31-959498-9
Authors

Tomasz Piorunek, Magdalena Kostrzewska, Marta Stelmach-Mardas, Marcin Mardas, Sławomir Michalak, Joanna Goździk-Spychalska, Halina Batura-Gabryel, Piorunek, Tomasz, Kostrzewska, Magdalena, Stelmach-Mardas, Marta, Mardas, Marcin, Michalak, Sławomir, Goździk-Spychalska, Joanna, Batura-Gabryel, Halina

Abstract

The impulse oscillometry (IOS) is recognized as a complementary method to spirometry in the diagnostics of obstructive pulmonary disorders. The IOS enables to measure total respiratory resistance (R5) and proximal respiratory resistance (R20), with the R5-R20 difference reflecting small airway resistance. This study seeks to evaluate the usefulness of R5-R20, maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF), and forced expiratory volume in 3 s/forced vital capacity ratio (FEV3/FVC), in the assessment of small airway obstruction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One hundred and six COPD patients and 43 control subjects, aged over 55, were investigated. Spirometry and IOS were used to assess pulmonary function. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were evaluated. The findings demonstrate significant reductions in FEV3/FVC and MMEF, and an increase in R5-R20 difference in COPD patients; the changes that depended on the severity of airway obstruction. The sensitivity of R5-R20 in reflecting the MMEF was 84%, specificity 44.2%, PPV 72.4%, and NPV 61.3%. We conclude that the R5-R20 difference is superior to spirometry in the assessment of small bronchi obstruction. A high sensitivity of R5-R20 in reflecting the MMEF makes the IOS method particularly useful for detection of mild lung injury, while a high specificity of the spirometric FEV3/FVC ratio makes it useful to exclude obstruction of small airways. Both methods are thus complimentary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 19%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,273,918
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#877
of 5,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,536
of 424,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#81
of 493 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 424,068 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 493 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.