| Title |
Prone positioning reduces mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome in the low tidal volume era: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-013-3194-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy R. Beitler, Shahzad Shaefi, Sydney B. Montesi, Amy Devlin, Stephen H. Loring, Daniel Talmor, Atul Malhotra |
| Abstract |
Prone positioning for ARDS has been performed for decades without definitive evidence of clinical benefit. A recent multicenter trial demonstrated for the first time significantly reduced mortality with prone positioning. This meta-analysis was performed to integrate these findings with existing literature and test whether differences in tidal volume explain conflicting results among randomized trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Chile | 1 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 215 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 12% |
| Researcher | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 67 | 30% |
| Unknown | 43 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 142 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | <1% |
| Engineering | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,151,304
of 24,761,242 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,059
of 5,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,902
of 316,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#3
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,761,242 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 5,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 316,534 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 96% of its contemporaries.