↓ Skip to main content

National Trauma Institute prospective evaluation of the ventilator bundle in trauma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
National Trauma Institute prospective evaluation of the ventilator bundle in trauma patients
Published in
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The, February 2013
DOI 10.1097/ta.0b013e31827a0c65
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin A. Croce, Karen J. Brasel, Raul Coimbra, Charles A. Adams, Preston R. Miller, Michael D. Pasquale, Chanchai S. McDonald, Somchan Vuthipadadon, Timothy C. Fabian, Elizabeth A. Tolley

Abstract

Since its introduction by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the ventilator bundle (VB) has been credited with a reduction in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The VB consists of stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, head-of-bed elevation, and daily sedation vacation with weaning assessment. While there is little compelling evidence that the VB is effective, it has been widely accepted. The Centers for Medical and Medicaid Services has suggested that VAP should be a "never event" and may reduce payment to providers. To provide evidence of its efficacy, the National Trauma Institute organized a prospective multi-institutional trial to evaluate the utility of the VB.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Spain 2 2%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 14%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 35 32%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 24 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,823,998
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#2,181
of 7,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,699
of 291,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#20
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 291,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.