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 |
Clinical review: Independent lung ventilation in critical care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc3827 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Devanand Anantham, Raghuram Jagadesan, Philip Cher Eng Tiew |
| Abstract |
Independent lung ventilation (ILV) can be classified into anatomical and physiological lung separation. It requires either endobronchial blockade or double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation. Endobronchial blockade or selective double-lumen tube ventilation may necessitate temporary one lung ventilation. Anatomical lung separation isolates a diseased lung from contaminating the non-diseased lung. Physiological lung separation ventilates each lung as an independent unit. There are some clear indications for ILV as a primary intervention and as a rescue ventilator strategy in both anatomical and physiological lung separation. Potential pitfalls are related to establishing and maintaining lung isolation. Nevertheless, ILV can be used in the intensive care setting safely with a good understanding of its limitations and potential complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 81% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 7 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,754,462
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,794
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,209
of 71,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 71,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.