↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of pressure-controlled ventilation with volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Comparison of pressure-controlled ventilation with volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0238-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyu Nam Kim, Dong Won Kim, Mi Ae Jeong, Yeong Hun Sin, Soo Kyung Lee

Abstract

Not only arterial hypoxemia but acute lung injury also has become the major concerns of one-lung ventilation (OLV). The use of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) for OLV offers the potential advantages of lower airway pressure and intrapulmonary shunt, which result in a reduced risk of barotrauma and improved oxygenation, respectively. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials and KoreaMedto find publications comparing the effects of PCV with those of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) during intraoperative OLV in adults. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed using the Cochrane Review Methods. Six studies (259 participants) were included. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio in PCV was higher than in VCV [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 11.04 mmHg, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.30 to 21.77, P = 0.04, I(2) = 3 %] and peak inspiratory pressure was significantly lower in PCV (WMD = -4.91 cm H2O, 95 % CI = -7.30 to -2.53, P < 0.0001, I (2) = 91 %). No differences in PaCO2, tidal volume, heart rate and blood pressure were observed. There were also no differences incompliance, plateau and mean airway pressure. Our meta-analysis provided the evidence of improved oxygenation in PCV. However, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions due to the fact that the duration of ventilation in the studies reviewed was insufficient to reveal clinically relevant benefits or disadvantages of PCV. Significantly lower peak inspiratory pressure is the advantage of PCV.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Chemistry 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 16 27%
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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#678
of 1,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,162
of 338,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#19
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 338,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.