↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of diagnostic methods to differentiate acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome from cardiogenic pulmonary edema

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
93 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
A systematic review of diagnostic methods to differentiate acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome from cardiogenic pulmonary edema
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1809-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kosaku Komiya, Tomohiro Akaba, Yuji Kozaki, Jun-ichi Kadota, Bruce K. Rubin

Abstract

Discriminating acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) is often challenging. This systematic review examines studies using biomarkers or images to distinguish ALI/ARDS from CPE. Three investigators independently identified studies designed to distinguish ALI/ARDS from CPE in adults. Studies were identified from PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database until July 3, 2017. Of 475 titles and abstracts screened, 38 full texts were selected for review, and we finally included 24 studies in this systematic review: 21 prospective observational studies, two retrospective observational studies, and one retrospective combined with prospective study. These studies compared various biomarkers to differentiate subjects with ALI/ARDS and in those with CPE, and 13 calculated the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). The most commonly studied biomarker (four studies) was brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the discriminatory ability ranged from AUC 0.67-0.87 but the timing of measurement varied. Other potential biomarkers or tools have been reported, but only as single studies. There were no identified biomarkers or tools with high-quality evidence for differentiating ALI/ARDS from CPE. Combining clinical criteria with validated biomarkers may improve the predictive accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 19%
Researcher 17 14%
Other 15 12%
Student > Master 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 37 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#731,555
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#503
of 6,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,931
of 325,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 325,521 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.