↓ Skip to main content

Implementing a bedside assessment of respiratory mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2017
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
70 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Implementing a bedside assessment of respiratory mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Critical Care, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1671-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lu Chen, Guang-Qiang Chen, Kevin Shore, Orest Shklar, Concetta Martins, Brian Devenyi, Paul Lindsay, Heather McPhail, Ashley Lanys, Ibrahim Soliman, Mazin Tuma, Michael Kim, Kerri Porretta, Pamela Greco, Hilary Every, Chris Hayes, Andrew Baker, Jan O. Friedrich, Laurent Brochard

Abstract

Despite their potential interest for clinical management, measurements of respiratory mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are seldom performed in routine practice. We introduced a systematic assessment of respiratory mechanics in our clinical practice. After the first year of clinical use, we retrospectively assessed whether these measurements had any influence on clinical management and physiological parameters associated with clinical outcomes by comparing their value before and after performing the test. The respiratory mechanics assessment constituted a set of bedside measurements to determine passive lung and chest wall mechanics, response to positive end-expiratory pressure, and alveolar derecruitment. It was obtained early after ARDS diagnosis. The results were provided to the clinical team to be used at their own discretion. We compared ventilator settings and physiological variables before and after the test. The physiological endpoints were oxygenation index, dead space, and plateau and driving pressures. Sixty-one consecutive patients with ARDS were enrolled. Esophageal pressure was measured in 53 patients (86.9%). In 41 patients (67.2%), ventilator settings were changed after the measurements, often by reducing positive end-expiratory pressure or by switching pressure-targeted mode to volume-targeted mode. Following changes, the oxygenation index, airway plateau, and driving pressures were significantly improved, whereas the dead-space fraction remained unchanged. The oxygenation index continued to improve in the next 48 h. Implementing a systematic respiratory mechanics test leads to frequent individual adaptations of ventilator settings and allows improvement in oxygenation indexes and reduction of the risk of overdistention at the same time. The present study involves data from our ongoing registry for respiratory mechanics (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02623192 . Registered 30 July 2015).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Other 17 13%
Student > Postgraduate 15 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 27 August 2023.
All research outputs
#798,133
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#588
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,439
of 323,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 323,891 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 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.