↓ Skip to main content

Applicability of respiratory variations in stroke volume and its surrogates for dynamic fluid responsiveness prediction in critically ill patients: a systematic review of the prevalence of required…

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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.
Title
Applicability of respiratory variations in stroke volume and its surrogates for dynamic fluid responsiveness prediction in critically ill patients: a systematic review of the prevalence of required conditions
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2017
DOI 10.5935/0103-507x.20170011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leandro Utino Taniguchi, Fernando Godinho Zampieri, Antonio Paulo Nassar

Abstract

The present systematic review searched for published data on the prevalence of required conditions for proper assessment in critically ill patients. The Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the prevalence of validated conditions for the fluid responsiveness assessment using respiratory variations in the stroke volume or another surrogate in adult critically ill patients. The primary outcome was the suitability of the fluid responsiveness evaluation. The secondary objectives were the type and prevalence of pre-requisites evaluated to define the suitability. Five studies were included (14,804 patients). High clinical and statistical heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 98.6%), which prevented us from pooling the results into a meaningful summary conclusion. The most frequent limitation identified is the absence of invasive mechanical ventilation with a tidal volume ≥ 8mL/kg. The final suitability for the fluid responsiveness assessment was low (in four studies, it varied between 1.9 to 8.3%, in one study, it was 42.4%). Applicability of the dynamic indices of preload responsiveness requiring heart-lung interactions might be limited in daily practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Professor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 October 2019.
All research outputs
#16,809,299
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#155
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,819
of 422,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 358 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 422,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.