↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries
Published in
Critical Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2126-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toshikazu Abe, Fabiana Madotto, Tài Pham, Isao Nagata, Masatoshi Uchida, Nanako Tamiya, Kiyoyasu Kurahashi, Giacomo Bellani, John G. Laffey, for the LUNG-SAFE Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group

Abstract

To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073 . Registered on 12 December 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 14%
Other 20 9%
Student > Master 16 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 6%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 51 24%
Unknown 72 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Unspecified 3 1%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 82 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,765,870
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,557
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,894
of 341,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#40
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 341,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.