↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary ciliary dyskinesia: PCD foundation consensus recommendations based on state of the art review

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Pulmonology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 3,320)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
183 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary ciliary dyskinesia: PCD foundation consensus recommendations based on state of the art review
Published in
Pediatric Pulmonology, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/ppul.23304
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam J. Shapiro, Maimoona A. Zariwala, Thomas Ferkol, Stephanie D. Davis, Scott D. Sagel, Sharon D. Dell, Margaret Rosenfeld, Kenneth N. Olivier, Carlos Milla, Sam J. Daniel, Adam J. Kimple, Michele Manion, Michael R. Knowles, Margaret W. Leigh

Abstract

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetically heterogeneous, rare lung disease resulting in chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease in both children and adults. Many physicians incorrectly diagnose PCD or eliminate PCD from their differential diagnosis due to inexperience with diagnostic testing methods. Thus far, all therapies used for PCD are unproven through large clinical trials. This review article outlines consensus recommendations from PCD physicians in North America who have been engaged in a PCD centered research consortium for the last 10 years. These recommendations have been adopted by the governing board of the PCD Foundation to provide guidance for PCD clinical centers for diagnostic testing, monitoring, and appropriate short and long-term therapeutics in PCD patients. Pediatr Pulmonol. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 227 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 33 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 58 25%
Unknown 38 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 48 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,112,755
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Pulmonology
#49
of 3,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,269
of 256,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Pulmonology
#3
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 256,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 96% of its contemporaries.