| Title |
Lung ultrasound: a promising tool to monitor ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1487-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guyi Wang, Xiaoying Ji, Yongshan Xu, Xudong Xiang |
| Abstract |
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most frequent intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection that is independently associated with mortality. Accurate diagnosis and timely treatment have been shown to improve the prognosis of VAP. Chest X-ray or computed tomography imaging are used for conventional assessment of VAP, but these methods are impractical for real-time measurement in critical patients. Therefore, lung ultrasound (LUS) has been increasingly used for the assessment of VAP in the ICU. Traditionally, LUS has seemed unsuitable for the detection of lung parenchyma owing to the high acoustic impedance of air; however, the fact that the reflection and reverberation in the detection region of the ultrasound reflect the underlying pathology of lung diseases has led to the increased use of ultrasound imaging as a standard of care supported by evidence-based and expert consensus in the ICU. Considering that any type of pneumonia causes air volume changes in the lungs, accumulating evidence has shown that LUS effectively measures the presence of VAP as well as dynamic changes in VAP. This review offers evidence for ultrasound as a noninvasive, easily repeatable, and bedside means to assess VAP; in addition, it establishes a protocol for qualitative and quantitative monitoring of VAP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 States | 5 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 13% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| Colombia | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Nepal | 1 | 3% |
| Qatar | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 23% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 85 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 35 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,413,518
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,215
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,335
of 322,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#22
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 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 81% 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 322,016 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.