↓ 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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 1%
Student > Master 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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
#1,456,586
of 11,477,928 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#663
of 2,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,709
of 311,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#14
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,477,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 311,710 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.