↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Recruitment and recruiting maneuvers

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Bench-to-bedside review: Recruitment and recruiting maneuvers
Published in
Critical Care, August 2004
DOI 10.1186/cc2934
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen E Lapinsky, Sangeeta Mehta

Abstract

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the lung comprises areas of aeration and areas of alveolar collapse, the latter producing intrapulmonary shunt and hypoxemia. The currently suggested strategy of ventilation with low lung volumes can aggravate lung collapse and potentially produce lung injury through shear stress at the interface between aerated and collapsed lung, and as a result of repetitive opening and closing of alveoli. An 'open lung strategy' focused on alveolar patency has therefore been recommended. While positive end-expiratory pressure prevents alveolar collapse, recruitment maneuvers can be used to achieve alveolar recruitment. Various recruitment maneuvers exist, including sustained inflation to high pressures, intermittent sighs, and stepwise increases in positive end-expiratory pressure or peak inspiratory pressure. In animal studies, recruitment maneuvers clearly reverse the derecruitment associated with low tidal volume ventilation, improve gas exchange, and reduce lung injury. Data regarding the use of recruitment maneuvers in patients with ARDS show mixed results, with increased efficacy in those with short duration of ARDS, good compliance of the chest wall, and in extrapulmonary ARDS. In this review we discuss the pathophysiologic basis for the use of recruitment maneuvers and recent evidence, as well as the practical application of the technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 170 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 18%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Postgraduate 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 9%
Other 43 24%
Unknown 19 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Engineering 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 26 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 May 2023.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,565
of 65,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 65,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.