↓ Skip to main content

Variable mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Variable mechanical ventilation
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2017
DOI 10.5935/0103-507x.20170012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fontela, Paula Caitano, Prestes, Renata Bernardy, Forgiarini Jr., Luiz Alberto, Friedman, Gilberto, Fontela, Paula Caitano, Prestes, Renata Bernardy, Forgiarini Jr., Luiz Alberto, Friedman, Gilberto

Abstract

To review the literature on the use of variable mechanical ventilation and the main outcomes of this technique. Search, selection, and analysis of all original articles on variable ventilation, without restriction on the period of publication and language, available in the electronic databases LILACS, MEDLINE®, and PubMed, by searching the terms "variable ventilation" OR "noisy ventilation" OR "biologically variable ventilation". A total of 36 studies were selected. Of these, 24 were original studies, including 21 experimental studies and three clinical studies. Several experimental studies reported the beneficial effects of distinct variable ventilation strategies on lung function using different models of lung injury and healthy lungs. Variable ventilation seems to be a viable strategy for improving gas exchange and respiratory mechanics and preventing lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. However, further clinical studies are necessary to assess the potential of variable ventilation strategies for the clinical improvement of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 33%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#10,719,564
of 19,141,916 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#91
of 289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,908
of 276,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,141,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 289 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 276,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them