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 |
Subglottic secretion suction for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1527-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhi Mao, Ling Gao, Guoqi Wang, Chao Liu, Yan Zhao, Wanjie Gu, Hongjun Kang, Feihu Zhou |
| Abstract |
Potential benefits of subglottic secretion suction for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are not fully understood. We searched Cochrane Central, PubMed, and EMBASE up to March 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared subglottic secretion suction versus non-subglottic secretion suction in adults with mechanical ventilation. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3, trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 and STATA 12.0. The primary outcome was incidence of VAP. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Twenty RCTs (N = 3544) were identified. Subglottic secretion suction was associated with reduction of VAP incidence in four high quality trials (relative risk (RR) 0.54, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.74; p < 0.00001) and in all trials (RR = 0.55, 95 % CI 0.48- 0.63; p < 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses did not show differences in the pooled results. Additionally, the results of the above-mentioned analyses were confirmed in TSA. GRADE level was high. Subglottic secretion suction significantly reduced incidence of early onset VAP, gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria causing VAP, and duration of mechanical ventilation. It delayed the time-to-onset of VAP. However, no significant differences in late onset VAP, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay were found. Subglottic secretion suction decreased VAP incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation and delayed VAP onset. However, subglottic secretion suction did not reduce mortality and length of ICU stay. Subglottic secretion suction is recommended for preventing VAP and for reducing ventilation length, especially in the population at high risk of early onset VAP. A protocol of this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42015015715 ); registered on 5 January 2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 8 | 33% |
| Mexico | 3 | 13% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 43 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 49 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,225,276
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,951
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,147
of 320,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#40
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 70% 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 320,663 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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 63% of its contemporaries.