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 |
PEEP titration during prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1153-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy R. Beitler, Claude Guérin, Louis Ayzac, Jordi Mancebo, Dina M. Bates, Atul Malhotra, Daniel Talmor |
| Abstract |
No major trial evaluating prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has incorporated a high-positive end-expiratory pressure (high-PEEP) strategy despite complementary physiological rationales. We evaluated generalizability of three recent proning trials to patients receiving a high-PEEP strategy. All trials employed a relatively low-PEEP strategy. After protocol ventilator settings were initiated and the patient was positioned per treatment assignment, post-intervention PEEP was not more than 5 cm H2O in 16.7 % and not more than 10 cm H2O in 66.0 % of patients. Post-intervention PEEP would have been nearly twice the set PEEP had a high-PEEP strategy been employed. Use of either proning or high-PEEP likely improves survival in moderate-severe ARDS; the role for both concomitantly remains unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 17% |
| Argentina | 4 | 10% |
| Costa Rica | 2 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 27% |
| Scientists | 5 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Turkey | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 21% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 64% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,532,502
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,351
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,304
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#95
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,554 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 done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 395,397 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 93% 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 done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.