↓ Skip to main content

Best PEEP trials are dependent on tidal volume

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Best PEEP trials are dependent on tidal volume
Published in
Critical Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2047-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew C. McKown, Matthew W. Semler, Todd W. Rice

Abstract

Determining the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome remains an area of active investigation. Most trials individualizing PEEP optimize one physiologic parameter (e.g., driving pressure) by titrating PEEP while holding other ventilator settings constant. Optimal PEEP, however, may depend on the tidal volume, and changing the tidal volume with which a best PEEP trial is performed may lead to different best PEEP settings in the same patient. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871102. Registered on 12 August 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 24%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Energy 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 10 June 2018.
All research outputs
#771,140
of 19,146,896 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#653
of 5,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,837
of 291,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,146,896 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 291,116 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 92% 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