| Title |
Ultrasonography evaluation during the weaning process: the heart, the diaphragm, the pleura and the lung
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-016-4245-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Mayo, G. Volpicelli, N. Lerolle, A. Schreiber, P. Doelken, A. Vieillard-Baron |
| Abstract |
On a regular basis, the intensivist encounters the patient who is difficult to wean from mechanical ventilatory support. The causes for failure to wean from mechanical ventilatory support are often multifactorial and involve a complex interplay between cardiac and pulmonary dysfunction. A potential application of point of care ultrasonography relates to its utility in the process of weaning the patient from mechanical ventilatory support. This article reviews some applications of ultrasonography that may be relevant to the process of weaning from mechanical ventilatory support. The authors have divided these applications of ultrasonography into four separate categories: the assessment of cardiac, diaphragmatic, and lung function; and the identification of pleural effusion; which can all be evaluated with ultrasonography during a dynamic process in which the intensivist is uniquely positioned to use ultrasonography at the point of care. Ultrasonography may have useful application during the weaning process from mechanical ventilatory support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| United States | 5 | 21% |
| Spain | 4 | 17% |
| Belgium | 2 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 21% |
| Scientists | 5 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 280 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 43 | 15% |
| Researcher | 39 | 14% |
| Other | 33 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 68 | 24% |
| Unknown | 55 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 188 | 66% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 3% |
| Unknown | 62 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,479,549
of 24,746,716 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,804
of 5,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,659
of 304,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#20
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,746,716 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,301 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 304,768 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.