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 |
Regional overdistension during prone positioning in a patient with acute respiratory failure who was ventilated with a low tidal volume: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-018-0290-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toru Kotani, Masanori Hanaoka, Shinya Hirahara, Hisashi Yamanaka, Eckhard Teschner, Atsuko Shono |
| Abstract |
Prone positioning may provide a uniform distribution of transpulmonary pressure and contribute to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury. However, despite moderate positive end-expiratory pressure and low tidal volumes, there is still a risk of regional overdistension. A man with refractory hypoxemia was mechanically ventilated with prone positioning. Although prone positioning with a plateau pressure of 18 cmH2O and a positive end-expiratory pressure of 8 cmH2O promptly improved oxygenation, regional ventilation monitoring using electrical impedance tomography initially detected decreased distribution in the dorsal region but increased in the ventral, suggesting overdistension. Our experience indicates monitoring regional ventilation distribution is useful for decreasing the risk of overdistension during prone positioning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 75% |
| Colombia | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,316,242
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#361
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,988
of 337,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 337,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.