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 |
Extracorporeal support for pulmonary resection: current indications and results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-016-0781-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Petra Rosskopfova, Jean Yannis Perentes, Hans-Beat Ris, Fabrizio Gronchi, Thorsten Krueger, Michel Gonzalez |
| Abstract |
Extracorporeal assistances are exponentially used for patients, with acute severe but reversible heart or lung failure, to provide more prolonged support to bridge patients to heart and/or lung transplantation. However, experience of use of extracorporeal assistance for pulmonary resection is limited outside lung transplantation. Airways management with standard mechanical ventilation system may be challenging particularly in case of anatomical reasons (single lung), presence of respiratory failure (ARDS), or complex tracheo-bronchial resection and reconstruction. Based on the growing experience during lung transplantation, more and more surgeons are now using such devices to achieve good oxygenation and hemodynamic support during such challenging cases. We review the different extracorporeal device and attempt to clarify the current practice and indications of extracorporeal support during pulmonary resection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 26% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 61% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,356,841
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#610
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,699
of 397,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 397,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 67% of its contemporaries.