| Title |
Avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in patients failing noninvasive ventilation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-012-2649-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Kluge, Stephan A. Braune, Markus Engel, Axel Nierhaus, Daniel Frings, Henning Ebelt, Alexander Uhrig, Maria Metschke, Karl Wegscheider, Norbert Suttorp, Simone Rousseau |
| Abstract |
To evaluate whether extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal by means of a pumpless extracorporeal lung-assist (PECLA) device could be an effective and safe alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with chronic pulmonary disease and acute hypercapnic ventilatory failure not responding to noninvasive ventilation (NIV). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 146 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 16% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 41 | 27% |
| Unknown | 24 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 90 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 7% |
| Engineering | 10 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 31 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,079,313
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,588
of 5,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,333
of 165,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 165,864 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.