↓ Skip to main content

Initial ventilator settings for critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
66 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Initial ventilator settings for critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12516
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oguz Kilickaya, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract

The lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategy has been standard practice for management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) for more than a decade. Observational data, small randomized studies and two recent systematic reviews suggest that lung protective ventilation is both safe and potentially beneficial in patients who do not have ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Principles of lung-protective ventilation include: a) prevention of volutrauma (tidal volume 4 to 8 ml/kg predicted body weight with plateau pressure <30 cmH2O); b) prevention of atelectasis (positive end-expiratory pressure ≥5 cmH2O, as needed recruitment maneuvers); c) adequate ventilation (respiratory rate 20 to 35 breaths per minute); and d) prevention of hyperoxia (titrate inspired oxygen concentration to peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels of 88 to 95%). Most patients tolerate lung protective mechanical ventilation well without the need for excessive sedation. Patients with a stiff chest wall may tolerate higher plateau pressure targets (approximately 35 cmH2O) while those with severe ARDS and ventilator asynchrony may require a short-term neuromuscular blockade. Given the difficulty in timely identification of patients with or at risk of ARDS and both the safety and potential benefit in patients without ARDS, lung-protective mechanical ventilation is recommended as an initial approach to mechanical ventilation in both perioperative and critical care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 98 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 17 16%
Other 16 15%
Researcher 12 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 26 July 2020.
All research outputs
#863,605
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#652
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,975
of 208,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#6
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 208,501 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 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.