↓ Skip to main content

Removing extra CO2 in COPD patients

Overview of attention for article published in Current Pulmonology Reports, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 114)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Removing extra CO2 in COPD patients
Published in
Current Pulmonology Reports, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13665-013-0057-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura W. Lund, William J. Federspiel

Abstract

For patients experiencing acute respiratory failure due to a severe exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation has been shown to significantly reduce mortality and hospital length of stay compared to respiratory support with invasive mechanical ventilation. Despite continued improvements in the administration of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), refractory hypercapnia and hypercapnic acidosis continue to prevent its successful use in many patients. Recent advances in extracorporeal gas exchange technology have led to the development of systems designed to be safer and simpler by focusing on the clinical benefits of partial extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R), as opposed to full cardiopulmonary support. While the use of ECCO2R has been studied in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), its use for acute hypercapnic respiratory during COPD exacerbations has not been evaluated until recently. This review will focus on literature published over the last year on the use of ECCO2R for removing extra CO2 in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of COPD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Philippines 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 62%
Engineering 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,811,025
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Current Pulmonology Reports
#2
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,608
of 207,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pulmonology Reports
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 114 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 207,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them