↓ Skip to main content

Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go?
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo LV Costa, Marcelo BP Amato

Abstract

Applying tidal volumes of less than 6 mL/kg might improve lung protection in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. In a recent article, Retamal and colleagues showed that such a reduction is feasible with conventional mechanical ventilation and leads to less tidal recruitment and overdistension without causing carbon dioxide retention or auto-positive end-expiratory pressure. However, whether the compensatory increase in the respiratory rate blunts the lung protection remains unestablished.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 20%
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 14 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,711,488
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,840
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,469
of 210,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#32
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 210,250 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.