↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 1,213)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
90 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0350-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed S. Alshahrani, Anees Sindi, Fayez Alshamsi, Awad Al-Omari, Mohamed El Tahan, Bayan Alahmadi, Ahmed Zein, Naif Khatani, Fahad Al-Hameed, Sultan Alamri, Mohammed Abdelzaher, Amenah Alghamdi, Faisal Alfousan, Adel Tash, Wail Tashkandi, Rajaa Alraddadi, Kim Lewis, Mohammed Badawee, Yaseen M. Arabi, Eddy Fan, Waleed Alhazzani

Abstract

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is caused by a coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and is characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of MERS-CoV patients before and after the availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy in severely hypoxemic patients who failed conventional strategies. We collected data retrospectively on MERS-CoV patients with refractory respiratory failure from April 2014 to December 2015 in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) in Saudi Arabia. Patients were classified into two groups: ECMO versus conventional therapy. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay. Thirty-five patients were included; 17 received ECMO and 18 received conventional therapy. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The ECMO group had lower in-hospital mortality (65 vs. 100%, P = 0.02), longer ICU stay (median 25 vs. 8 days, respectively, P < 0.01), and similar hospital stay (median 41 vs. 31 days, P = 0.421). In addition, patients in the ECMO group had better PaO2/FiO2 at days 7 and 14 of admission to the ICU (124 vs. 63, and 138 vs. 36, P < 0.05), and less use of norepinephrine at days 1 and 14 (29 vs. 80%; and 36 vs. 93%, P < 0.05). ECMO use, as a rescue therapy, was associated with lower mortality in MERS patients with refractory hypoxemia. The results of this, largest to date, support the use of ECMO as a rescue therapy in patients with severe MERS-CoV.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 20%
Other 18 11%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Computer Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 57 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#432,461
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#39
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,920
of 453,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 453,656 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.