↓ Skip to main content

Inhalation injury: epidemiology, pathology, treatment strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
237 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
417 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
Inhalation injury: epidemiology, pathology, treatment strategies
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1757-7241-21-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Dries, Frederick W Endorf

Abstract

Lung injury resulting from inhalation of smoke or chemical products of combustion continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Combined with cutaneous burns, inhalation injury increases fluid resuscitation requirements, incidence of pulmonary complications and overall mortality of thermal injury. While many products and techniques have been developed to manage cutaneous thermal trauma, relatively few diagnosis-specific therapeutic options have been identified for patients with inhalation injury. Several factors explain slower progress for improvement in management of patients with inhalation injury. Inhalation injury is a more complex clinical problem. Burned cutaneous tissue may be excised and replaced with skin grafts. Injured pulmonary tissue must be protected from secondary injury due to resuscitation, mechanical ventilation and infection while host repair mechanisms receive appropriate support. Many of the consequences of smoke inhalation result from an inflammatory response involving mediators whose number and role remain incompletely understood despite improved tools for processing of clinical material. Improvements in mortality from inhalation injury are mostly due to widespread improvements in critical care rather than focused interventions for smoke inhalation.Morbidity associated with inhalation injury is produced by heat exposure and inhaled toxins. Management of toxin exposure in smoke inhalation remains controversial, particularly as related to carbon monoxide and cyanide. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment has been evaluated in multiple trials to manage neurologic sequelae of carbon monoxide exposure. Unfortunately, data to date do not support application of hyperbaric oxygen in this population outside the context of clinical trials. Cyanide is another toxin produced by combustion of natural or synthetic materials. A number of antidote strategies have been evaluated to address tissue hypoxia associated with cyanide exposure. Data from European centers supports application of specific antidotes for cyanide toxicity. Consistent international support for this therapy is lacking. Even diagnostic criteria are not consistently applied though bronchoscopy is one diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Medical strategies under investigation for specific treatment of smoke inhalation include beta-agonists, pulmonary blood flow modifiers, anticoagulants and antiinflammatory strategies. Until the value of these and other approaches is confirmed, however, the clinical approach to inhalation injury is supportive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 410 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 13%
Student > Bachelor 54 13%
Student > Postgraduate 51 12%
Other 40 10%
Researcher 29 7%
Other 70 17%
Unknown 119 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 199 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 6%
Engineering 13 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 2%
Other 30 7%
Unknown 131 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,123,808
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#208
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,668
of 197,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 197,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.