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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Global end-diastolic volume is an important contributor to increased extravascular lung water in patients with acute lung injury and acuterespiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2052-0492-2-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tadashi Kaneko, Yoshikatsu Kawamura, Tsuyoshi Maekawa, Takashi Tagami, Toshiaki Nakamura, Nobuyuki Saito, Yasuhide Kitazawa, Hiroyasu Ishikura, Manabu Sugita, Kazuo Okuchi, Hiroshi Rinka, Akihiro Watanabe, Yoichi Kase, Shigeki Kushimoto, Hiroo Izumino, Takashi Kanemura, Kazuhide Yoshikawa, Hiroyuki Takahashi, Takayuki Irahara, Teruo Sakamoto, Yuichi Kuroki, Yasuhiko Taira, Ryutarou Seo, Junko Yamaguchi, Makoto Takatori |
| Abstract |
Extravascular lung water (EVLW), as measured by the thermodilution method, reflects the extent of pulmonary edema. Currently, there are no clinically effective treatments for preventing increases in pulmonary vascular permeability, a hallmark of lung pathophysiology, in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS). In this study, we examined the contributions of hemodynamic and osmolarity factors, for which appropriate interventions are expected in critical care, to EVLW in patients with ALI/ARDS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 50% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
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 19 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,262,331
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#391
of 512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,471
of 226,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 226,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.