↓ Skip to main content

Could the use of bedside lung ultrasound reduce the number of chest x-rays in the intensive care unit?

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 327)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Could the use of bedside lung ultrasound reduce the number of chest x-rays in the intensive care unit?
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12947-017-0113-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etrusca Brogi, Elena Bignami, Anna Sidoti, Mohammed Shawar, Luna Gargani, Luigi Vetrugno, Giovanni Volpicelli, Francesco Forfori

Abstract

Lung ultrasound can be used as an alternative to chest radiography (CXR) for the diagnosis and follow-up of various lung diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim was to evaluate the influence that introducing a routine daily use of lung ultrasound in critically ill patients may have on the number of CXRs and as a consequence, on medical costs and radiation exposure. Data were collected by conducting a retrospective evaluation of the medical records of adult patients who needed thoracic imaging and were admitted to our academic polyvalent ICU. We compared the number of CXRs and relative costs before and after the introduction of lung ultrasound in our ICU. A total of 4134 medical records were collected from January 2010 to December 2014. We divided our population into two groups, before (Group A, 1869 patients) and after (Group B, 2265 patients) the introduction of a routine use of LUS in July 2012. Group A performed a higher number of CXRs compared to Group B (1810 vs 961, P = 0.012), at an average of 0.97 vs 0.42 exams per patient. The estimated reduction of costs between Groups A and B obtained after the introduction of LUS, was 57%. No statistically significant difference between the outcome parameters of the two groups was observed. Lung ultrasound was effective in reducing the number of CXRs and relative medical costs and radiation exposure in ICU, without affecting patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 13 9%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 54 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 59 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 10 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,258,129
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#9
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,817
of 322,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 322,432 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.