↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Acute respiratory distress syndrome - clinical ventilator management and adjunct therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Clinical review: Acute respiratory distress syndrome - clinical ventilator management and adjunct therapy
Published in
Critical Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11867
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A Silversides, Niall D Ferguson

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a potentially devastating form of acute inflammatory lung injury with a high short-term mortality rate and significant long-term consequences among survivors. Supportive care, principally with mechanical ventilation, remains the cornerstone of therapy - although the goals of this support have changed in recent years - from maintaining normal physiological parameters to avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury while providing adequate gas exchange. In this article we discuss the current evidence base for ventilatory support and adjunctive therapies in patients with ARDS. Key components of such a strategy include avoiding lung overdistension by limiting tidal volumes and airway pressures, and the use of positive end-expiratory pressure with or without lung recruitment manoeuvres in patients with severe ARDS. Adjunctive therapies discussed include pharmacologic techniques (for example, vasodilators, diuretics, neuromuscular blockade) and nonpharmacologic techniques (for example, prone position, alternative modes of ventilation).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 164 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 32 18%
Other 24 14%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 45 26%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 24 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,242,058
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,963
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,313
of 204,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 204,180 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.