↓ Skip to main content

Diaphragm thickening fraction to predict weaning—a prospective exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Diaphragm thickening fraction to predict weaning—a prospective exploratory study
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0258-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sujay Samanta, Ratender Kumar Singh, Arvind K. Baronia, Banani Poddar, Afzal Azim, Mohan Gurjar

Abstract

Diaphragm ultrasound (DUS) is a well-established point of care modality for assessment of dimensional and functional aspects of the diaphragm. Amongst various measures, diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTf) is more comprehensive. However, there is still uncertainty about its capability to predict weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV). The present prospective observational exploratory study assessed the diaphragm at variable negative pressure triggers (NPTs) with US to predict weaning in ICU patients. Adult ICU patients about to receive their first T-piece were included in the study. Linear and curvilinear US probes were used to measure right side diaphragm characteristics first at pressure support ventilation (PSV) of 8 cmH2O with positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cmH2O against NPTs of 2, 4, and 6 cmH2O and then later during their first T-piece. The measured variables were then categorized into simple weaning (SW) and complicated weaning (CW) groups and their outcomes analyzed. Sixty-four (M:F, 40:24) medical (55/64, 86%) patients were included in the study. Sepsis of lung origin (65.5%) was the dominant reason for MV. There were 33 and 31 patients in the SW and CW groups, respectively. DTf predicts SW with a cutoff ≥ 25.5, 26.5, 25.5, and 24.5 for 2, 4, and 6 NPTs and T-piece, respectively, with ≥ 0.90 ROC AUC. At NPT of 2, DTf had the highest sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 81% [ROC AUC (CI), 0.91 (0.84-0.99); p < 0.001]. DTf may successfully predict SW and also help identify patients ready to wean prior to a T-piece trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 6 9%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#11,497,410
of 18,880,385 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#290
of 439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,867
of 329,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#38
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,880,385 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 329,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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.