↓ Skip to main content

Chest radiography versus lung ultrasound for identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
91 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Chest radiography versus lung ultrasound for identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective observational study
Published in
Critical Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2105-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kay Choong See, Venetia Ong, Yi Lin Tan, Juliet Sahagun, Juvel Taculod

Abstract

Lung ultrasound may be a reasonable alternative to chest radiography for the identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound for ARDS is uncertain. We therefore analyzed the clinical outcomes of ARDS diagnosed according to the Berlin Definition, using either chest radiography (Berlin-CXR) or lung ultrasound (Berlin-LUS) as an alternative imaging method. This was a retrospective observational study in a 20-bed medical intensive care unit (ICU). Patients who required noninvasive ventilation or invasive ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure on ICU admission from August 2014 to March 2017 were included. Both chest radiography and lung ultrasound were performed routinely upon ICU admission. Comparisons were made using either the Berlin-CXR or Berlin-LUS definitions to diagnose ARDS with respect to the patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for each definition. ICU and hospital mortality were the main outcome measures for both definitions. The first admissions of 456 distinct patients were analyzed. Compared with the 216 patients who met the Berlin-CXR definition (ICU mortality 19.4%, hospital mortality 36.1%), 229 patients who met the Berlin-LUS definition (ICU mortality 22.7%, hospital mortality 34.5%) and 79 patients who met the Berlin-LUS but not the Berlin-CXR definition (ICU mortality 21.5%, hospital mortality 29.1%) had similar outcomes. In contrast, the 295 patients who met either definition had higher mortality than the 161 patients who did not meet either definition (ICU mortality 20.0% versus 12.4%, P = 0.041; hospital mortality 34.2% versus 24.2%, P = 0.027). Compared with Berlin-CXR, Berlin-LUS had a positive predictive value of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.72) and a negative predictive value of 0.71 (0.65-0.77). Among the 216 Berlin-CXR ARDS patients, 150 patients (69.4%) also fulfilled Berlin-LUS definition. For the identification of ARDS using the Berlin definition, both chest radiography and lung ultrasound were equally related to mortality. The Berlin definition using lung ultrasound helped identify patients at higher risk of death, even if these patients did not fulfill the conventional Berlin definition using chest radiography. However, the moderate overlap of patients when chest imaging modalities differed suggests that chest radiography and lung ultrasound should be complementary rather than used interchangeably.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 25 July 2019.
All research outputs
#765,861
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#556
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,355
of 341,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#13
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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 341,495 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 95% 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.