↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of community-acquired, hospital-acquired, and intensive care unit-acquired acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Comparison of community-acquired, hospital-acquired, and intensive care unit-acquired acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1096-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kuo-Chin Kao, Han-Chung Hu, Meng-Jer Hsieh, Ying-Huang Tsai, Chung-Chi Huang

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a syndrome characterized by diffuse pulmonary edema and severe hypoxemia that usually occurs after an injury such as sepsis, aspiration and pneumonia. Little is known about the relation between the setting where the syndrome developed and outcomes in ARDS patients. This is a 1-year prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary referred hospital. ARDS was defined by the Berlin criteria. Community-acquired ARDS, hospital-acquired ARDS and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired ARDS were defined as ARDS occurring within 48 hours of hospital or ICU admission, more than 48 hours after hospital admission and ICU admission. The primary and secondary outcomes were short- and long- term mortality rates and ventilator-free and ICU-free days. Of the 3002 patients screened, 296 patients had a diagnosis of ARDS, including 70 (23.7 %) with community-acquired ARDS, 83 (28 %) with hospital-acquired ARDS, and 143 (48.3 %) with ICU-acquired ARDS. The overall ICU mortality rate was not significantly different in mild, moderate and severe ARDS (50 %, 50 % and 56 %, p = 0.25). The baseline characteristics were similar other than lower rate of liver disease and metastatic malignancy in community-acquired ARDS than in hospital-acquired and ICU-acquired ARDS. A multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that age, sequential organ function assessment score and community-acquired ARDS were independently associated with hospital mortality. For community-acquired, hospital-acquired and ICU-acquired ARDS, ICU mortality rates were 37 % 61 % and 52 %; hospital mortality rates were 49 %, 74 % and 68 %. The ICU and hospital mortality rates of community-acquired ARDS were significantly lower than hospital-acquired and ICU-acquired ARDS (p = 0.001 and p = 0.001). The number of ventilator-free days was significantly lower in ICU-acquired ARDS than in community-acquired and hospital-acquired ARDS (11 ± 9, 16 ± 9, and 14 ± 10 days, p = 0.001). The number of ICU-free days was significantly higher in community-acquired ARDS than in hospital-acquired and ICU-acquired ARDS (8 ± 10, 4 ± 8, and 3 ± 6 days, p = 0.001). Community-acquired ARDS have lower short- and long-term mortality rates than hospital-acquired or ICU-acquired ARDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,023,864
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,813
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,032
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#134
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 395,418 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 71% of its contemporaries.