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 |
Thoracic ultrasound for pleural effusion in the intensive care unit: a narrative review from diagnosis to treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1897-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Brogi, L. Gargani, E. Bignami, F. Barbariol, A. Marra, F. Forfori, L. Vetrugno |
| Abstract |
Pleural effusion (PLEFF), mostly caused by volume overload, congestive heart failure, and pleuropulmonary infection, is a common condition in critical care patients. Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) helps clinicians not only to visualize pleural effusion, but also to distinguish between the different types. Furthermore, TUS is essential during thoracentesis and chest tube drainage as it increases safety and decreases life-threatening complications. It is crucial not only during needle or tube drainage insertion, but also to monitor the volume of the drained PLEFF. Moreover, TUS can help diagnose co-existing lung diseases, often with a higher specificity and sensitivity than chest radiography and without the need for X-ray exposure. We review data regarding the diagnosis and management of pleural effusion, paying particular attention to the impact of ultrasound. Technical data concerning thoracentesis and chest tube drainage are also provided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 23 | 24% |
| Spain | 7 | 7% |
| United States | 5 | 5% |
| Peru | 4 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 45 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 82 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 11% |
| Scientists | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 318 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 11% |
| Researcher | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 66 | 21% |
| Unknown | 104 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 169 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | <1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | <1% |
| Engineering | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 10 | 3% |
| Unknown | 118 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#587,972
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#384
of 6,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,343
of 451,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#16
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 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 6,620 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 94% 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 451,637 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 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.