↓ Skip to main content

Performance and applications of bedside visual inspection of airway pressure–time curve profiles for estimating stress index in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 712)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Performance and applications of bedside visual inspection of airway pressure–time curve profiles for estimating stress index in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10877-018-0153-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phunsup Wongsurakiat, Nadwipa Yuangtrakul

Abstract

To determine the performance of bedside visual inspection of airway pressure-time (Paw-t) curve profiles (VI) for estimating stress index (SI) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A prospective study in 30 subjects with ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation at two peak inspiratory flow (PIF) settings: 60 or 40 L/min. For each study session, two physicians inspected real-time Paw-t waveforms from mechanical ventilator's monitoring screens at bedside for 30 s and interpreted which of the three patterns (tidal recruitment, noninjurious ventilation or tidal overdistension) the Paw-t curve profile was compatible with. Subsequently, the study was repeated again at the second PIF setting. SI was derived from a standardized dedicated software program and categorized into three groups: SI < 0.9, or tidal recruitment; SI = 0.9-1.05, or noninjurious ventilation; and SI > 1.05, or tidal overdistension. The lower PIF setting increased the sensitivity of VI to correctly estimate SI (75% vs. 50%; p = 0.005). At PIF 40 L/min, the likelihood ratio of a positive test was 3.6, 5.4 or 7 if the Paw-t curve profile was interpreted as noninjurious ventilation, tidal recruitment or tidal overdistension, respectively. The likelihood ratio of a negative test ranged from 0.55 for tidal recruitment to 0.32 and 0.19 for noninjurious ventilation and tidal overdistension, respectively. Experience in mechanical ventilation did not influence the accuracy. Bedside VI is moderately accurate for estimating SI and may be used to monitor injurious ventilation in patients with ARDS, in addition to plateau airway pressure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Unknown 10 63%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Unknown 11 69%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,409,631
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#26
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,585
of 328,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 328,116 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.