↓ Skip to main content

Recomendações brasileiras de ventilação mecânica 2013. Parte I

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
5 X users
1 Facebook page


72 Dimensions

Readers on

258 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.
Recomendações brasileiras de ventilação mecânica 2013. Parte I
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, January 2014
DOI 10.5935/0103-507x.20140017
Pubmed ID

Carmen Sílvia Valente Barbas, Alexandre Marini Ísola, Augusto Manoel de Carvalho Farias, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Ana Maria Casati Gama, Antonio Carlos Magalhães Duarte, Arthur Vianna, Ary Serpa, Bruno de Arruda Bravim, Bruno do Valle Pinheiro, Bruno Franco Mazza, Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho, Carlos Toufen, Cid Marcos Nascimento David, Corine Taniguchi, Débora Dutra da Silveira Mazza, Desanka Dragosavac, Diogo Oliveira Toledo, Eduardo Leite Costa, Eliana Bernardete Caser, Eliezer Silva, Fabio Ferreira Amorim, Felipe Saddy, Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas, Gisele Sampaio Silva, Gustavo Faissol Janot de Matos, João Claudio Emmerich, Jorge Luis dos Santos Valiatti, José Mario Meira Teles, Josué Almeida Victorino, Juliana Carvalho Ferreira, Luciana Passuello do Vale Prodomo, Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar, Luiz Cláudio Martins, Luiz Marcelo Sá Malbouisson, Mara Ambrosina de Oliveira Vargas, Marco Antonio Soares Reis, Marcelo Brito Passos Amato, Marcelo Alcântara Holanda, Marcelo Park, Marcia Jacomelli, Marcos Tavares, Marta Cristina Paulette Damasceno, Murillo Santucci César Assunção, Moyzes Pinto Coelho Duarte Damasceno, Nazah Cherif Mohamad Youssef, Paulo José Zimmermann Teixeira, Pedro Caruso, Péricles Almeida Delfino Duarte, Octavio Messeder, Raquel Caserta Eid, Ricardo Goulart Rodrigues, Rodrigo Francisco de Jesus, Ronaldo Adib Kairalla, Sandra Justino, Sérgio Nogueira Nemer, Simone Barbosa Romero, Verônica Moreira Amado


Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumonia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 258 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 76 29%
Student > Postgraduate 31 12%
Student > Master 27 10%
Researcher 12 5%
Other 7 3%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 80 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 21%
Engineering 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 88 34%
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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 319,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 319,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.