↓ Skip to main content

Supplementary oxygen for nonhypoxemic patients: O2 much of a good thing?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2011
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Supplementary oxygen for nonhypoxemic patients: O2 much of a good thing?
Published in
Critical Care, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/cc10229
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve Iscoe, Richard Beasley, Joseph A Fisher

Abstract

Supplementary oxygen is routinely administered to patients, even those with adequate oxygen saturations, in the belief that it increases oxygen delivery. But oxygen delivery depends not just on arterial oxygen content but also on perfusion. It is not widely recognized that hyperoxia causes vasoconstriction, either directly or through hyperoxia-induced hypocapnia. If perfusion decreases more than arterial oxygen content increases during hyperoxia, then regional oxygen delivery decreases. This mechanism, and not (just) that attributed to reactive oxygen species, is likely to contribute to the worse outcomes in patients given high-concentration oxygen in the treatment of myocardial infarction, in postcardiac arrest, in stroke, in neonatal resuscitation and in the critically ill. The mechanism may also contribute to the increased risk of mortality in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which worsening respiratory failure plays a predominant role. To avoid these effects, hyperoxia and hypocapnia should be avoided, with oxygen administered only to patients with evidence of hypoxemia and at a dose that relieves hypoxemia without causing hyperoxia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 107 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Other 16 14%
Researcher 14 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 17 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 20 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,353,420
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,171
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,659
of 126,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 54 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 94th 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 done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 126,653 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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.