| Title |
International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giovanni Volpicelli, Mahmoud Elbarbary, Michael Blaivas, Daniel A. Lichtenstein, Gebhard Mathis, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Lawrence Melniker, Luna Gargani, Vicki E. Noble, Gabriele Via, Anthony Dean, James W. Tsung, Gino Soldati, Roberto Copetti, Belaid Bouhemad, Angelika Reissig, Eustachio Agricola, Jean-Jacques Rouby, Charlotte Arbelot, Andrew Liteplo, Ashot Sargsyan, Fernando Silva, Richard Hoppmann, Raoul Breitkreutz, Armin Seibel, Luca Neri, Enrico Storti, Tomislav Petrovic, International Liaison Committee on Lung Ultrasound (ILC-LUS) for the International Consensus Conference on Lung Ultrasound (ICC-LUS) |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to provide evidence-based and expert consensus recommendations for lung ultrasound with focus on emergency and critical care settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 8 | 10% |
| United States | 6 | 8% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Spain | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Colombia | 3 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 22% |
| Scientists | 7 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,661 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 5 | <1% |
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1637 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 206 | 12% |
| Researcher | 184 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 169 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 146 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 127 | 8% |
| Other | 403 | 24% |
| Unknown | 426 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 985 | 59% |
| Engineering | 32 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 25 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | <1% |
| Other | 98 | 6% |
| Unknown | 476 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 28 April 2024.
All research outputs
#447,073
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#391
of 5,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,968
of 169,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#1
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 169,250 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 98% of its contemporaries.