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 |
Impact of prolonged assisted ventilation on diaphragmatic efficiency: NAVA versus PSV
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1178-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosa Di mussi, Savino Spadaro, Lucia Mirabella, Carlo Alberto Volta, Gabriella Serio, Francesco Staffieri, Michele Dambrosio, Gilda Cinnella, Francesco Bruno, Salvatore Grasso |
| Abstract |
Prolonged controlled mechanical ventilation depresses diaphragmatic efficiency. Assisted modes of ventilation should improve it. We assessed the impact of pressure support ventilation versus neurally adjusted ventilator assist on diaphragmatic efficiency. Patients previously ventilated with controlled mechanical ventilation for 72 hours or more were randomized to be ventilated for 48 hours with pressure support ventilation (n =12) or neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (n = 13). Neuro-ventilatory efficiency (tidal volume/diaphragmatic electrical activity) and neuro-mechanical efficiency (pressure generated against the occluded airways/diaphragmatic electrical activity) were measured during three spontaneous breathing trials (0, 24 and 48 hours). Breathing pattern, diaphragmatic electrical activity and pressure time product of the diaphragm were assessed every 4 hours. In patients randomized to neurally adjusted ventilator assist, neuro-ventilatory efficiency increased from 27 ± 19 ml/μV at baseline to 62 ± 30 ml/μV at 48 hours (p <0.0001) and neuro-mechanical efficiency increased from 1 ± 0.6 to 2.6 ± 1.1 cmH2O/μV (p = 0.033). In patients randomized to pressure support ventilation, these did not change. Electrical activity of the diaphragm, neural inspiratory time, pressure time product of the diaphragm and variability of the breathing pattern were significantly higher in patients ventilated with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. The asynchrony index was 9.48 [6.38- 21.73] in patients ventilated with pressure support ventilation and 5.39 [3.78- 8.36] in patients ventilated with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (p = 0.04). After prolonged controlled mechanical ventilation, neurally adjusted ventilator assist improves diaphragm efficiency whereas pressure support ventilation does not. ClinicalTrials.gov study registration: NCT0247317 , 06/11/2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 Kingdom | 6 | 10% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Australia | 4 | 6% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 27% |
| Scientists | 5 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 25% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 09 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,044,261
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#820
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,069
of 400,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#54
of 495 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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 87% 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 400,002 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 495 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.