↓ Skip to main content

Our paper 20 years later: how has withdrawal from mechanical ventilation changed?

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Our paper 20 years later: how has withdrawal from mechanical ventilation changed?
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00134-014-3362-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Frutos-Vivar, Andrés Esteban

Abstract

Withdrawal from mechanical ventilation (or weaning) is one of the most common procedures in intensive care units. Almost 20 years ago, we published one of the seminal papers on weaning in which we showed that the best method for withdrawal from mechanical ventilation in difficult-to-wean patients was a once-daily spontaneous breathing trial with a T-piece. Progress has not stood still, and in the intervening years up to the present several other studies, by our group and others, have shaped weaning into an evidence-based technique. The results of these studies have been applied progressively to routine clinical practice. Currently, withdrawal from mechanical ventilation can be summarized as the evaluation of extubation readiness based on the patient's performance during a spontaneous breathing trial. This trial can be performed with a T-piece, which is the most common approach, or with continuous positive airway pressure or low levels of pressure support. Most patients can be disconnected after passing the first spontaneous breathing trial. In patients who fail the first attempt at withdrawal, the use of a once-daily spontaneous breathing trial or a gradual reduction in pressure support are the preferred weaning methods. However, new applications of standard techniques, such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or new methods of mechanical ventilation, such as automatic tube compensation, automated closed-loop systems, and automated knowledge-based weaning systems, can play a role in the management of the patients with difficult or prolonged weaning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 %
Chile 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 22%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,661,887
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#3,767
of 5,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,745
of 230,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#27
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 230,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.