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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Value of variation index of inferior vena cava diameter in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-2063-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Haijun Huang, Qinkang Shen, Yafen Liu, Hua Xu, Yixin Fang |
| Abstract |
Respiratory variations in the inferior vena cava diameter (ΔIVCD) have been studied extensively with respect to their value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the value of ΔIVCD for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2017. The diagnostic OR (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The summary ROC curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated. Overall, 603 patients were included in this review, 324 (53.7%) of whom were fluid-responsive. The cutoff values of ΔIVCD varied across studies, ranging from 8% to 21%. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with an overall Q = 0.069, I2 = 0%, and P = 0.483. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the overall population were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51-0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66-0.89), respectively. The DOR was 9.28 (95% CI, 2.33-36.98). AUROCs were reported in five studies. Overall, the pooled AUROC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85). The findings of this study suggest that the ΔIVCD performed moderately well in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory shock receiving mechanical ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 9 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 7% |
| United States | 8 | 7% |
| Colombia | 7 | 6% |
| Italy | 7 | 6% |
| Chile | 5 | 4% |
| Spain | 4 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 54 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 94 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 16% |
| Scientists | 5 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 25% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 62% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 27 March 2023.
All research outputs
#618,866
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#403
of 6,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,057
of 343,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 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 6,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 343,278 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.