↓ Skip to main content

ECFS best practice guidelines: the 2018 revision

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
207 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
374 Mendeley
Title
ECFS best practice guidelines: the 2018 revision
Published in
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcf.2018.02.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Castellani, Alistair J.A. Duff, Scott C. Bell, Harry G.M. Heijerman, Anne Munck, Felix Ratjen, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Kevin W. Southern, Jurg Barben, Patrick A. Flume, Pavla Hodková, Nataliya Kashirskaya, Maya N. Kirszenbaum, Sue Madge, Helen Oxley, Barry Plant, Sarah Jane Schwarzenberg, Alan R. Smyth, Giovanni Taccetti, Thomas O.F. Wagner, Susan P. Wolfe, Pavel Drevinek

Abstract

Developments in managing CF continue to drive dramatic improvements in survival. As newborn screening rolls-out across Europe, CF centres are increasingly caring for cohorts of patients who have minimal lung disease on diagnosis. With the introduction of mutation-specific therapies and the prospect of truly personalised medicine, patients have the potential to enjoy good quality of life in adulthood with ever-increasing life expectancy. The landmark Standards of Care published in 2005 set out what high quality CF care is and how it can be delivered throughout Europe. This underwent a fundamental re-write in 2014, resulting in three documents; center framework, quality management and best practice guidelines. This document is a revision of the latter, updating standards for best practice in key aspects of CF care, in the context of a fast-moving and dynamic field. In continuing to give a broad overview of the standards expected for newborn screening, diagnosis, preventative treatment of lung disease, nutrition, complications, transplant/end of life care and psychological support, this consensus on best practice is expected to prove useful to clinical teams both in countries where CF care is developing and those with established CF centres. The document is an ECFS product and endorsed by the CF Network in ERN LUNG and CF Europe.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 374 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 13%
Student > Master 46 12%
Researcher 46 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 11%
Other 39 10%
Other 66 18%
Unknown 86 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 4%
Other 40 11%
Unknown 108 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 10 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,709,787
of 17,367,552 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
#56
of 1,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,158
of 285,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,367,552 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 285,609 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.