↓ Skip to main content

Automatic detection of ventilatory modes during invasive mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2016
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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.
Title
Automatic detection of ventilatory modes during invasive mechanical ventilation
Published in
Critical Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1436-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gastón Murias, Jaume Montanyà, Encarna Chacón, Anna Estruga, Carles Subirà, Rafael Fernández, Bernat Sales, Candelaria de Haro, Josefina López-Aguilar, Umberto Lucangelo, Jesús Villar, Robert M. Kacmarek, Lluís Blanch

Abstract

Expert systems can help alleviate problems related to the shortage of human resources in critical care, offering expert advice in complex situations. Expert systems use contextual information to provide advice to staff. In mechanical ventilation, it is crucial for an expert system to be able to determine the ventilatory mode in use. Different manufacturers have assigned different names to similar or even identical ventilatory modes so an expert system should be able to detect the ventilatory mode. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of an algorithm to detect the ventilatory mode in use. We compared the results of a two-step algorithm designed to identify seven ventilatory modes. The algorithm was built into a software platform (BetterCare® system, Better Care SL; Barcelona, Spain) that acquires ventilatory signals through the data port of mechanical ventilators. The sample analyzed compared data from consecutive adult patients who underwent >24 h of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) at two hospitals. We used Cohen's kappa statistics to analyze the agreement between the results obtained with the algorithm and those recorded by ICU staff. We analyzed 486 records from 73 patients. The algorithm correctly labeled the ventilatory mode in 433 (89 %). We found an unweighted Cohen's kappa index of 84.5 % [CI (95 %) = (80.5 %: 88.4 %)]. The computerized algorithm can reliably identify ventilatory mode.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Engineering 7 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,537,256
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,748
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,529
of 363,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#75
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 363,522 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.