↓ Skip to main content

Carbon dioxide and the critically ill—too little of a good thing?

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, October 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
212 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Carbon dioxide and the critically ill—too little of a good thing?
Published in
The Lancet, October 1999
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)02388-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John G Laffey, Brian P Kavanagh

Abstract

Permissive hypercapnia (acceptance of raised concentrations of carbon dioxide in mechanically ventilated patients) may be associated with increased survival as a result of less ventilator-associated lung injury. Conversely, hypocapnia is associated with many acute illnesses (eg, asthma, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, pulmonary oedema), and is thought to reflect underlying hyperventilation. Accumulating clinical and basic scientific evidence points to an active role for carbon dioxide in organ injury, in which raised concentrations of carbon dioxide are protective, and low concentrations are injurious. We hypothesise that therapeutic hypercapnia might be tested in severely ill patients to see whether supplemental carbon dioxide could reduce the adverse effects of hypocapnia and promote the beneficial effects of hypercapnia. Such an approach could also expand our understanding of the pathogenesis of disorders in which hypocapnia is a constitutive element.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 75 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 23%
Other 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Professor 7 9%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 5 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2014.
All research outputs
#2,087,830
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#11,511
of 15,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,616
of 107,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#231
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 52nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 107,083 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.