↓ Skip to main content

Lung ultrasound can be used to predict the potential of prone positioning and assess prognosis in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
42 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Lung ultrasound can be used to predict the potential of prone positioning and assess prognosis in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Critical Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1558-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-ting Wang, Xin Ding, Hong-min Zhang, Huan Chen, Long-xiang Su, Da-wei Liu, Chinese Critical Ultrasound Study Group (CCUSG)

Abstract

It is very important to assess the effectiveness of prone positioning (PP) in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is difficult to identify patients who may benefit from PP. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether prone positioning potential (PPP) can be predicted by lung ultrasound in patients with ARDS. In this prospective study, 45 patients with ARDS were included for the assessment of PPP. A PP lung ultrasound examination (PLUE) protocol was performed in the dorsal regions of the lung in 16 areas at H0, H3, and H6 (0, 3, and 6 h after PP). The ultrasonography videos were blindly evaluated by two expert clinicians to classify the lung regions as normal pattern (N), moderate loss of lung aeration (B1), severe loss of lung aeration (B2), and consolidation (C). The aeration scores were collected at H0, H3, and H6. According to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) at 7 days, patients were classified into PPP-positive (P/F ratio >300) and PPP-negative groups; also, the patients were classified into survival and nonsurvival groups according to 28-day mortality. Aeration scores was compared at H0, H3, and H6. The scores were significantly reduced between H3 and H0, but there was no difference between H3 and H6. The aeration score variation (ASV) of the PPP-positive group between H3 and H0 was significantly higher than that in the PPP-negative group, and the sensitivity and specificity of ASV ≥5.5 for the PPP-positive group were 73.9% and 86.4%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.852 for the ASV. The ASV between H3 and H0 in the survival group was significantly higher than in the nonsurvival group. The sensitivity and specificity of ASV ≥7 for survival were 51.5% and 75%, respectively. The AUROC was 0.702 for the ASV. The PLUE protocol can be used to predict PPP and assess prognosis in patients with ARDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 14%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Unspecified 6 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 18 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,218,909
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,024
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,209
of 415,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#20
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 84% 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 415,970 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.