↓ Skip to main content

The Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Cognitive Outcomes Study: long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 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
The Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Cognitive Outcomes Study: long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injury
Published in
Critical Care, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12709
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Gogela Carlson, David T Huang

Abstract

Mikkelsen ME, Christie JD, Lanken PN, Biester RC, Thompson BT, Bellamy SL, Localio AR, Demissie E, Hopkins RO, Angus DC: The adult respiratory distress syndrome cognitive outcomes study: long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012, 185:1307-1315. Cognitive and psychiatric morbidity is common and potentially modifiable after acute lung injury (ALI). However, practical measures of neuropsychological function for use in multicenter trials are lacking. The objectives were to determine whether a validated telephone-based neuropsychological test battery is feasible in a multicenter trial and to determine the frequency and risk factors for long-term neuro psychological impairment. A prospective, multicenter cohort study of a subset of survivors from the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) was conducted. The FACTT enrolled patients from 38 North American hospitals between June 2000 and October 2005. To be eligible for the ALI Cognitive Outcomes Study (ACOS), subjects had to be enrolled in the FACTT and the EA-PAC (Economic Assessment of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter) trial. The FACTT enrolled mechanically ventilated adults who met the American-European Consensus Conference criteria for ALI. In an adjunct study to the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials Network Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, neuropsychological function at 2 and 12 months after hospital discharge was assessed. e primary outcome was the result of a validated telephone battery of standardized neuropsychological tests administered to consenting, English-speak-ing subjects at 2 and 12 months after hospital discharge. Of 406 eligible survivors, 261 patients were approached to participate and 213 consented. One hundred twenty-two subjects, including 102 subjects at 12 months, were tested at least once. Memory, verbal fluency, and executive function were impaired in 13% (12 of 92), 16% (15 of 96), and 49% (37 of 76) of long-term survivors, respectively. Long-term cognitive impairment was present in 41 (55%) of the 75 survivors who completed cognitive testing. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety were present in 36% (37 of 102), 39% (40 of 102), and 62% (63 of 102) of long-term survivors, respectively. Enrollment in a conservative fluid management strategy (P<0.005) was associated with cognitive impairment, and lower partial pressure of arterial oxygen during the trial was associated with cognitive (P<0.02) and psychiatric (P<0.02) impairment. Neuropsychological function can be assessed by telephone in a multicenter trial. Long-term neuropsychological impairment is common in survivors of ALI. Hypoxemia is a risk factor for long-term neuropsychological impairment. A fluid management strategy is a potential risk factor for long-term cognitive impairment; however, given the select population studied and an unclear mechanism, this finding requires confirmation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 36%
Psychology 24 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,167
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,986
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,474
of 207,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#79
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 207,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.