↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Exogenous surfactant therapy for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome - where do we go from here?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Clinical review: Exogenous surfactant therapy for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome - where do we go from here?
Published in
Critical Care, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahilanandan Dushianthan, Rebecca Cusack, Victoria Goss, Anthony D Postle, Mike PW Grocott

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are characterised by severe hypoxemic respiratory failure and poor lung compliance. Despite advances in clinical management, morbidity and mortality remains high. Supportive measures including protective lung ventilation confer a survival advantage in patients with ARDS, but management is otherwise limited by the lack of effective pharmacological therapies. Surfactant dysfunction with quantitative and qualitative abnormalities of both phospholipids and proteins are characteristic of patients with ARDS. Exogenous surfactant replacement in animal models of ARDS and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome shows consistent improvements in gas exchange and survival. However, whilst some adult studies have shown improved oxygenation, no survival benefit has been demonstrated to date. This lack of clinical efficacy may be related to disease heterogeneity (where treatment responders may be obscured by nonresponders), limited understanding of surfactant biology in patients or an absence of therapeutic effect in this population. Crucially, the mechanism of lung injury in neonates is different from that in ARDS: surfactant inhibition by plasma constituents is a typical feature of ARDS, whereas the primary pathology in neonates is the deficiency of surfactant material due to reduced synthesis. Absence of phenotypic characterisation of patients, the lack of an ideal natural surfactant material with adequate surfactant proteins, coupled with uncertainty about optimal timing, dosing and delivery method are some of the limitations of published surfactant replacement clinical trials. Recent advances in stable isotope labelling of surfactant phospholipids coupled with analytical methods using electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry enable highly specific molecular assessment of phospholipid subclasses and synthetic rates that can be utilised for phenotypic characterisation and individualisation of exogenous surfactant replacement therapy. Exploring the clinical benefit of such an approach should be a priority for future ARDS research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 August 2014.
All research outputs
#7,714,565
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,134
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,387
of 284,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#32
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 284,933 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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.