{rfName}
Va

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

101

Altmetrics

Grant support

Funding Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH under Awards K12HL138046 and K24HL12131.

Analysis of institutional authors

Valenzuela, CAuthor

Share

Publications
>
Review

Variability in Global Prevalence of Interstitial Lung Disease

Publicated to:Frontiers of Medicine. 8 751181- - 2021-11-04 8(), DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.751181

Authors: Kaul, Bhavika; Cottin, Vincent; Collard, Harold R.; Valenzuela, Claudia;

Affiliations

Claude Bernard Univ Lyon 1, IVPC, INRAE, Lyon, France - Author
ERN LUNG, Lyon, France - Author
Hosp Civils Lyon, Dept Resp Med, Natl Coordinating Reference Ctr Rare Pulm Dis, Louis Pradel Hosp, Lyon, France - Author
Univ Autonoma Madrid, Interstitial Lung Dis Unit, Dept Pulmonol, Hosp Univ La Princesa, Madrid, Spain - Author
Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA - Author
See more

Abstract

There are limited epidemiologic studies describing the global burden and geographic heterogeneity of interstitial lung disease (ILD) subtypes. We found that among seventeen methodologically heterogenous studies that examined the incidence, prevalence and relative frequencies of ILDs, the incidence of ILD ranged from 1 to 31.5 per 100,000 person-years and prevalence ranged from 6.3 to 71 per 100,000 people. In North America and Europe, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and sarcoidosis were the most prevalent ILDs while the relative frequency of hypersensitivity pneumonitis was higher in Asia, particularly in India (10.7-47.3%) and Pakistan (12.6%). The relative frequency of connective tissue disease ILD demonstrated the greatest geographic variability, ranging from 7.5% of cases in Belgium to 33.3% of cases in Canada and 34.8% of cases in Saudi Arabia. These differences may represent true differences based on underlying characteristics of the source populations or methodological differences in disease classification and patient recruitment (registry vs. population-based cohorts). There are three areas where we feel addition work is needed to better understand the global burden of ILD. First, a standard ontology with diagnostic confidence thresholds for comparative epidemiology studies of ILD is needed. Second, more globally representative data should be published in English language journals as current literature has largely focused on Europe and North America with little data from South America, Africa and Asia. Third, the inclusion of community-based cohorts that leverage the strength of large databases can help better estimate population burden of disease. These large, community-based longitudinal cohorts would also allow for tracking of global trends and be a valuable resource for collective study. We believe the ILD research community should organize to define a shared ontology for disease classification and commit to conducting global claims and electronic health record based epidemiologic studies in a standardized fashion. Aggregating and sharing this type of data would provide a unique opportunity for international collaboration as our understanding of ILD continues to grow and evolve. Better understanding the geographic and temporal patterns of disease prevalence and identifying clusters of ILD subtypes will facilitate improved understanding of emerging risk factors and help identify targets for future intervention.

Keywords

epidemiology—descriptiveglobal epidemiologyidiopathic pulmonary fibrosisinterstitial lung diseaseDiagnosisEpidemiologyEpidemiology-descriptiveEpidemiology—descriptiveGlobal epidemiologyIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisIdiopathic pulmonary-fibrosisInterstitial lung diseaseMortalityUpdate

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Frontiers of Medicine due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2021, it was in position 32/245, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Oncology.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 1.37. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Weighted Average of Normalized Impact by the Scopus agency: 8.43 (source consulted: FECYT Feb 2024)
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 35.59 (source consulted: Dimensions Jun 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-06-16, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 26
  • Scopus: 75
  • OpenCitations: 65

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-06-16:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 234.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 234 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 10.
  • The number of mentions in news outlets: 1 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: France; United States of America.

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: Last Author (VALENZUELA ., CLAUDIA).