↓ Skip to main content

The LUNG SAFE: a biased presentation of the prevalence of ARDS!

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The LUNG SAFE: a biased presentation of the prevalence of ARDS!
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1273-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesús Villar, Marcus J. Schultz, Robert M. Kacmarek, Villar, Jesús, Schultz, Marcus J, Kacmarek, Robert M

Abstract

The recent Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) challenges current data on the prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The LUNG SAFE investigators claimed that their data demonstrated the predictive validity of the Berlin criteria. Also, the LUNG SAFE showed a disturbingly large gap between scientific evidence and medical practice. All of these statements demand that we question the interpretations of the study's findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 15 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 02 October 2016.
All research outputs
#875,173
of 19,542,586 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#759
of 5,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,149
of 274,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,542,586 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 5,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 274,871 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 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.