↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 497)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
Mechanical ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0091-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryoichi Ochiai

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been intensively and continuously studied in various settings, but its mortality is still as high as 30-40 %. For the last 20 years, lung protective strategy has become a standard care for ARDS, but we still do not know the best way to ventilate patients with ARDS. Tidal volume itself does not seem to have an important role to develop ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), but the driving pressure, which is inspiratory plateau pressure-PEEP, is the most important to predict and affect the outcome of ARDS, though there is no safe limit for the driving pressure. There is so much controversy regarding what the best PEEP is, whether collapsed lung should be recruited, and what parameters should be measured and evaluated to improve the outcome of ARDS. Since the mechanical ventilation for patients with respiratory failure, including ARDS, is a standard care, we need more dynamic and regional information of ventilation and pulmonary circulation in the injured lungs to evaluate the efficacy of new type of treatment strategy. In addition to the CT scanning of the lung as the gold standard of evaluation, the electrical impedance tomography (EIT) of the lung has been clinically available to provide such information non-invasively and at the bedside. Various parameters have been tested to evaluate the homogeneity of regional ventilation, and EIT could provide us with the information of ventilator settings to minimize VILI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 223 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 39 17%
Other 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 33 14%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 11%
Other 50 22%
Unknown 22 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 165 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Engineering 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Neuroscience 2 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 25 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 04 April 2020.
All research outputs
#435,811
of 21,749,791 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#9
of 497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,691
of 250,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,749,791 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 497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 250,487 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them