↓ Skip to main content

Etiologies, diagnostic work-up and outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome with no common risk factor: a prospective multicenter study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Etiologies, diagnostic work-up and outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome with no common risk factor: a prospective multicenter study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0281-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas de Prost, Tài Pham, Guillaume Carteaux, Armand Mekontso Dessap, Christian Brun-Buisson, Eddy Fan, Giacomo Bellani, John Laffey, Alain Mercat, Laurent Brochard, Bernard Maître, for the LUNG SAFE investigators, the ESICM trials group, the REVA network

Abstract

Patients meeting the Berlin definition for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) might lack exposure to one or more "common" risk factors and exhibit different clinical phenotype and outcomes. We aimed to compare the clinical presentation and outcome of ARDS patients with or without risk factors, the impact on hospital mortality, and to assess the diagnostic work-up performed. The current study is an ancillary analysis of an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study (the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure, LUNG SAFE). Patients meeting ARDS criteria within 2 days of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure onset were included in the study and categorized as having risk factors or not. Outcomes were compared using propensity score matching. Among 2813 patients, 234 (8.3% [7.3-9.3]) had no ARDS risk factor identified. These were older, had more frequent chronic diseases and presented with less severe SOFA and non-pulmonary SOFA scores (p < 0.001). Compared to other ARDS, CT scan (32.1 vs 23.9%, p < 0.001) and open lung biopsy (2.6 vs 0.2%, p < 0.001) were slightly more frequent but left heart filling pressures assessment was not (69.4 vs 68.4%, p > 0.99). Among ARDS with no risk factor, 45 patients (19.2%) had a specific diagnosis made. As compared to others, patients having ARDS with no risk factor had a lower ICU but not hospital mortality (34.6 vs 40.0%; p = 0.12). A matched cohort analysis confirmed the lack of significant difference in mortality. Eight percent of ARDS patients have no identified risk factor, 80% of whom have no etiological diagnosis made. The outcome of ARDS with no risk factor was comparable to other ARDS but few had a comprehensive diagnostic work-up, potentially leading to missed curable diseases. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02010073.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,775,034
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#541
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,618
of 316,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#13
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,590 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.