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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Low tidal volume ventilation with low PEEP during surgery may induce lung inflammation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-016-0209-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hitoshi Sato, Kyota Nakamura, Yasuko Baba, Shoko Terada, Takahisa Goto, Kiyoyasu Kurahashi |
| Abstract |
Compared to conventional tidal volume ventilation, low tidal-volume ventilation reduces mortality in cased of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of the present study is to determine whether low tidal-volume ventilation reduces the production of inflammatory mediators in the lungs and improves physiological status during hepatic surgery. We randomly assigned patients undergoing hepatectomy into 2 groups: conventional tidal-volume vs. low tidal-volume (12 vs. 6 mL•kg(-1) ideal body weight) ventilation with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 3 cm H2O. Arterial blood and airway epithelial lining fluid were sampled immediately after intubation and every 3 h thereafter. Twenty-five patients were analyzed. No significant changes were found in hemodynamics or acid-base status during the study. Interleukin-8 was significantly elevated in epithelial lining fluid from the low tidal-volume group. Oxygenation evaluated immediately after admission to the post-surgical care unit was significantly worse in the low tidal-volume group. Low tidal-volume ventilation with low positive end-expiratory pressure may lead to pulmonary inflammation during major surgery such as hepatectomy. The effect of ventilatory tidal volume on lung injury during hepatectomy that requires transient liver blood flow interruption. UMIN000021371 (03/07/2016); retrospectively registered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,088,840
of 23,646,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#285
of 1,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,894
of 368,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,646,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,565 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 368,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.