↓ Skip to main content

Extravascular lung water and the pulmonary vascular permeability index may improve the definition of ARDS

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Extravascular lung water and the pulmonary vascular permeability index may improve the definition of ARDS
Published in
Critical Care, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11918
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azriel Perel

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The recent Berlin definition has made some improvements in the older definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), although the concepts and components of the definition remained largely unchanged. In an effort to improve both predictive and face validity, the Berlin panel has examined a number of additional measures that may reflect increased pulmonary vascular permeability, including extravascular lung water. The panel concluded that although extravascular lung water has improved face validity and higher values are associated with mortality, it is infeasible to mandate on the basis of availability and the fact that it does not distinguish between hydrostatic and inflammatory pulmonary edema. However, the results of a multi-institutional study that appeared in the previous issue of Critical Care show that this latter reservation may not necessarily be true. By using extravascular lung water and the pulmonary vascular permeability index, both of which are derived from transpulmonary thermodilution, the authors could successfully differentiate between patients with ARDS and other patients in respiratory failure due to either cardiogenic edema or pleural effusion with atelectasis. This commentary discusses the merits and limitations of this study in view of the potential improvement that transpulmonary thermodilution may bring to the definition of ARDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 8%
Czechia 1 4%
Unknown 21 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 75%
Design 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,237
of 288,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#90
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.