↓ Skip to main content

Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome after abdominal surgery: a multicenter retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2017
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome after abdominal surgery: a multicenter retrospective study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0235-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphane Gaudry, Samuel Tuffet, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Christian Laplace, Noémie Zucman, Marc Pocard, Bruno Costaglioli, Simon Msika, Jacques Duranteau, Didier Payen, Didier Dreyfuss, David Hajage, Jean-Damien Ricard

Abstract

The recent demonstration of prone position's strong benefit on patient survival has rendered proning a major therapeutic intervention in severe ARDS. Uncertainties remain as to whether or not ARDS patients in the postoperative period of abdominal surgery should be turned prone because of the risk of abdominal complications. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of surgical complications between patients with and without prone position after abdominal surgery. This study was a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with ARDS in a context of recent abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was the number of patients who had at least one surgical complication that could be induced or worsened by prone position. Secondary outcomes included effects of prone position on oxygenation. Data from the prone group were compared with those from the supine group (not having undergone at least a prone position session). Among 98 patients included, 36 (37%) had at least one prone position session. The rate of surgical complications induced or worsened by prone position did not differ between prone and supine groups [respectively, 14 (39%) vs 27 (44%); p = 0.65]. After propensity score application, there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR 0.72 [0.26-2.02], p = 0.54). Revision surgery did not differ between the groups. The first prone session significantly increased PaO2/FiO2 ratio from 95 ± 47 to 189 ± 92 mmHg, p < 0.0001. Prone position of ARDS patients after abdominal surgery was not associated with an increased rate of surgical complication. Intensivists should not refrain from proning these patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 24%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 20 December 2019.
All research outputs
#949,951
of 16,033,320 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#77
of 722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,244
of 262,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,033,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 262,987 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.