↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes and survival prediction models for severe adult acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Outcomes and survival prediction models for severe adult acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Published in
Critical Care, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1568-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sacha Rozencwajg, David Pilcher, Alain Combes, Matthieu Schmidt

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has known a growing interest over the last decades with promising results during the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza epidemic. Targeting populations that can most benefit from this therapy is now of major importance.Survival has steadily improved for a decade, reaching up to 65% at hospital discharge in the most recent cohorts. However, ECMO is still marred by frequent and significant complications such as bleeding and nosocomial infections. In addition, physiological and psychological symptoms are commonly described in long-term follow-up of ECMO-treated ARDS survivors. Because this therapy is costly and exposes patients to significant complications, seven prediction models have been developed recently to help clinicians identify patients most likely to survive once ECMO has been initiated and to facilitate appropriate comparison of risk-adjusted outcomes between centres and over time. Higher age, immunocompromised status, associated extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction, low respiratory compliance and non-influenzae diagnosis seem to be the main determinants of poorer outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 20%
Other 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 15 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,380,309
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,095
of 6,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,757
of 415,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 415,991 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 85 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 50% of its contemporaries.