↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous dilational tracheostomy versus bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in critically ill patients (TRACHUS): a randomized noninferiority controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Ultrasound-guided percutaneous dilational tracheostomy versus bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in critically ill patients (TRACHUS): a randomized noninferiority controlled trial
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4218-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Luiz Nunes Gobatto, Bruno A. M. P. Besen, Paulo F. G. M. M. Tierno, Pedro V. Mendes, Filipe Cadamuro, Daniel Joelsons, Livia Melro, Maria J. C. Carmona, Gregorio Santori, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Park, Luiz M. S. Malbouisson

Abstract

Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy (PDT) is routinely performed in the intensive care unit with bronchoscopy guidance. Recently, ultrasound has emerged as a potentially useful tool to assist PDT and reduce procedure-related complications. An open-label, parallel, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing an ultrasound-guided PDT with a bronchoscopy-guided PDT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The primary outcome was procedure failure, defined as a composite end-point of conversion to a surgical tracheostomy, unplanned associated use of bronchoscopy or ultrasound during PDT, or the occurrence of a major complication. A total of 4965 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 171 patients were eligible and 118 underwent the procedure, with 60 patients randomly assigned to the ultrasound group and 58 patients to the bronchoscopy group. Procedure failure occurred in one (1.7 %) patient in the ultrasound group and one (1.7 %) patient in the bronchoscopy group, with no absolute risk difference between the groups (90 % confidence interval, -5.57 to 5.85), in the "as treated" analysis, not including the prespecified margin of 6 % for noninferiority. No other patient had any major complication in either group. Procedure-related minor complications occurred in 20 (33.3 %) patients in the ultrasound group and in 12 (20.7 %) patients in the bronchoscopy group (P = 0.122). The median procedure length was 11 [7-19] vs. 13 [8-20] min (P = 0.468), respectively, and the clinical outcomes were also not different between the groups. Ultrasound-guided PDT is noninferior to bronchoscopy-guided PDT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 16%
Other 14 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 29 23%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 33 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,362,302
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,218
of 5,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,494
of 312,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#10
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 312,580 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 91% of its contemporaries.