Title |
Predictors of successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) weaning after assistance for refractory cardiogenic shock
|
---|---|
Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, October 2011
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00134-011-2358-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Nadia Aissaoui, Charles-Edouard Luyt, Pascal Leprince, Jean-Louis Trouillet, Philippe Léger, Alain Pavie, Benoit Diebold, Jean Chastre, Alain Combes |
Abstract |
Detailed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) weaning strategies and specific predictors of ECMO weaning success are lacking. This study evaluated a weaning strategy following support for refractory cardiogenic shock to identify clinical, hemodynamic, and Doppler echocardiography parameters associated with successful ECMO removal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 | 7 | 14% |
Spain | 6 | 12% |
Mexico | 3 | 6% |
Germany | 3 | 6% |
Netherlands | 2 | 4% |
Argentina | 2 | 4% |
Italy | 2 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
Chile | 1 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 16% |
Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 32 | 63% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 20% |
Scientists | 5 | 10% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
France | 2 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Japan | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 203 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 38 | 18% |
Other | 36 | 17% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 8% |
Student > Master | 16 | 8% |
Other | 55 | 26% |
Unknown | 30 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 147 | 70% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
Engineering | 4 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 1% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | <1% |
Other | 7 | 3% |
Unknown | 40 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 03 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,076,185
of 24,870,516 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#997
of 5,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,461
of 136,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,870,516 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 5,325 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 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 136,885 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 99% of its contemporaries.