↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Adjuncts to mechanical ventilation in patients with acute lung injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Bench-to-bedside review: Adjuncts to mechanical ventilation in patients with acute lung injury
Published in
Critical Care, June 2005
DOI 10.1186/cc3763
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Jacques Rouby, Qin Lu

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation is indispensable for the survival of patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, excessive tidal volumes and inadequate lung recruitment may contribute to mortality by causing ventilator-induced lung injury. This bench-to-bedside review presents the scientific rationale for using adjuncts to mechanical ventilation aimed at optimizing lung recruitment and preventing the deleterious consequences of reduced tidal volume. To enhance CO2 elimination when tidal volume is reduced, the following are possible: first, ventilator respiratory frequency can be increased without necessarily generating intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure; second, instrumental dead space can be reduced by replacing the heat and moisture exchanger with a conventional humidifier; and third, expiratory washout can be used for replacing the CO2-laden gas present at end expiration in the instrumental dead space by a fresh gas (this method is still experimental). For optimizing lung recruitment and preventing lung derecruitment there are the following possibilities: first, recruitment manoeuvres may be performed in the most hypoxaemic patients before implementing the preset positive end-expiratory pressure or after episodes of accidental lung derecruitment; second, the patient can be turned to the prone position; third, closed-circuit endotracheal suctioning is to be preferred to open endotracheal suctioning.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 19%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 21 25%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 March 2012.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,397
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,195
of 67,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 67,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.