You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Variable mechanical ventilation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.5935/0103-507x.20170012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paula Caitano Fontela, Renata Bernardy Prestes, Luiz Alberto Forgiarini, Gilberto Friedman |
| Abstract |
To review the literature on the use of variable mechanical ventilation and the main outcomes of this technique. Search, selection, and analysis of all original articles on variable ventilation, without restriction on the period of publication and language, available in the electronic databases LILACS, MEDLINE®, and PubMed, by searching the terms "variable ventilation" OR "noisy ventilation" OR "biologically variable ventilation". A total of 36 studies were selected. Of these, 24 were original studies, including 21 experimental studies and three clinical studies. Several experimental studies reported the beneficial effects of distinct variable ventilation strategies on lung function using different models of lung injury and healthy lungs. Variable ventilation seems to be a viable strategy for improving gas exchange and respiratory mechanics and preventing lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. However, further clinical studies are necessary to assess the potential of variable ventilation strategies for the clinical improvement of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 44% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,551,340
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#121
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,396
of 421,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. 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 421,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.