↓ Skip to main content

Pneumothorax as a complication of lung volume recruitment* **

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Pneumothorax as a complication of lung volume recruitment* **
Published in
Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, January 2013
DOI 10.1590/s1806-37132013000300017
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Lung volume recruitment involves deep inflation techniques to achieve maximum insufflation capacity in patients with respiratory muscle weakness, in order to increase peak cough flow, thus helping to maintain airway patency and improve ventilation. One of these techniques is air stacking, in which a manual resuscitator is used in order to inflate the lungs. Although intrathoracic pressures can rise considerably, there have been no reports of respiratory complications due to air stacking. However, reaching maximum insufflation capacity is not recommended in patients with known structural abnormalities of the lungs or chronic obstructive airway disease. We report the case of a 72-year-old woman who had poliomyelitis as a child, developed torsion scoliosis and post-polio syndrome, and had periodic but infrequent asthma attacks. After performing air stacking for 3 years, the patient suddenly developed a pneumothorax, indicating that this technique should be used with caution or not at all in patients with a known pulmonary pathology.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 75%
Student > Master 1 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 July 2013.
All research outputs
#24,529,092
of 27,265,592 outputs
Outputs from Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia
#204
of 249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,053
of 297,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia
#31
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,265,592 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 249 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 297,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.