↓ Skip to main content

Novel approaches to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 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
Novel approaches to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-85
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eddy Fan, Jesus Villar, Arthur S Slutsky

Abstract

Despite over 40 years of research, there is no specific lung-directed therapy for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although much has evolved in our understanding of its pathogenesis and factors affecting patient outcome, supportive care with mechanical ventilation remains the cornerstone of treatment. Perhaps the most important advance in ARDS research has been the recognition that mechanical ventilation, although necessary to preserve life, can itself aggravate or cause lung damage through a variety of mechanisms collectively referred to as ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). This improved understanding of ARDS and VILI has been important in designing lung-protective ventilatory strategies aimed at attenuating VILI and improving outcomes. Considerable effort has been made to enhance our mechanistic understanding of VILI and to develop new ventilatory strategies and therapeutic interventions to prevent and ameliorate VILI with the goal of improving outcomes in patients with ARDS. In this review, we will review the pathophysiology of VILI, discuss a number of novel physiological approaches for minimizing VILI, therapies to counteract biotrauma, and highlight a number of experimental studies to support these concepts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 2%
Colombia 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 186 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 10%
Other 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 57 29%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Engineering 7 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 37 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,621,937
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,501
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,661
of 199,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#75
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 199,499 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.