↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction in the critically ill patient with ultrasound: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
255 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
502 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction in the critically ill patient with ultrasound: a systematic review
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4524-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Massimo Zambon, Massimiliano Greco, Speranza Bocchino, Luca Cabrini, Paolo Federico Beccaria, Alberto Zangrillo

Abstract

Diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD) has a high incidence in critically ill patients and is an under-recognized cause of respiratory failure and prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation. Among different methods to assess diaphragmatic function, diaphragm ultrasonography (DU) is noninvasive, rapid, and easy to perform at the bedside. We systematically reviewed the current literature assessing the usefulness and accuracy of DU in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Pubmed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar Databases were searched for pertinent studies. We included all original, peer-reviewed studies about the use of DU in ICU patients. Twenty studies including 875 patients were included in the final analysis. DU was performed with different techniques to measure diaphragmatic inspiratory excursion, thickness of diaphragm (Tdi), and thickening fraction (TF). DU is feasible, highly reproducible, and allows one to detect diaphragmatic dysfunction in critically ill patients. During weaning from mechanical ventilation and spontaneous breathing trials, both diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickening measurements have been used to predict extubation success or failure. Optimal cutoffs ranged from 10 to 14 mm for excursion and 30-36 % for thickening fraction. During assisted mechanical ventilation, diaphragmatic thickening has been found to be an accurate index of respiratory muscles workload. Observational studies suggest DU as a reliable method to assess diaphragm atrophy in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Current literature suggests that DU could be a useful and accurate tool to detect diaphragmatic dysfunction in critically ill patients, to predict extubation success or failure, to monitor respiratory workload, and to assess atrophy in patients who are mechanically ventilated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users 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 502 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 500 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 61 12%
Student > Master 54 11%
Student > Postgraduate 52 10%
Other 44 9%
Student > Bachelor 35 7%
Other 125 25%
Unknown 131 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 259 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 9%
Neuroscience 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Other 29 6%
Unknown 149 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,500,577
of 24,171,511 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,298
of 5,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,096
of 327,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#11
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,171,511 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 5,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 327,323 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.