↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an expert opinion

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
172 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 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
Respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an expert opinion
Published in
Critical Care, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1820-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Chiumello, Laurent Brochard, John J. Marini, Arthur S. Slutsky, Jordi Mancebo, V. Marco Ranieri, B. Taylor Thompson, Laurent Papazian, Marcus J. Schultz, Marcelo Amato, Luciano Gattinoni, Alain Mercat, Antonio Pesenti, Daniel Talmor, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common condition in intensive care unit patients and remains a major concern, with mortality rates of around 30-45% and considerable long-term morbidity. Respiratory support in these patients must be optimized to ensure adequate gas exchange while minimizing the risks of ventilator-induced lung injury. The aim of this expert opinion document is to review the available clinical evidence related to ventilator support and adjuvant therapies in order to provide evidence-based and experience-based clinical recommendations for the management of patients with ARDS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 172 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 288 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 42 15%
Student > Postgraduate 34 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Master 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 76 26%
Unknown 52 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 184 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 67 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. 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 10 February 2022.
All research outputs
#274,476
of 22,005,197 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#143
of 5,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,700
of 292,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,005,197 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 292,441 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.