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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical review: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10490 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luciano Gattinoni, Eleonora Carlesso, Thomas Langer |
| Abstract |
The H1N1 flu pandemic led to a wider use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), proving its power in hypoxemic emergencies. The results obtained during this pandemic, more than any randomized trial, led to the worldwide acceptance of the use of membrane lungs. Moreover, as centers that applied this technique as rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia recognized its strength and limited technical challenges, the indications for ECMO have recently been extended. Indications for veno-venous ECMO currently include respiratory support as a bridge to lung transplantation, correction of lung hyperinflation during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and respiratory support in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome, possibly also without mechanical ventilation. The current enthusiasm for ECMO in its various aspects should not, however, obscure the consideration of the potential complications associated with this life-saving technique, primarily brain hemorrhage. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Turkey | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 234 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 18% |
| Other | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 66 | 26% |
| Unknown | 27 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 170 | 68% |
| Engineering | 15 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,598,118
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,744
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,089
of 246,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 246,971 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.