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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Disrupting differential hypoxia in peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0997-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew Edward Cove |
| Abstract |
Patients receiving circulatory support with peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are at risk of developing differential hypoxia. This phenomenon occurs in patients with concomitant respiratory failure. Poorly oxygenated blood, ejected into the ascending aorta from the left ventricle, competes with retrograde flow from the ECMO circuit, potentially causing myocardial and cerebral ischaemia. In a recent Critical Care article, Hou et al. use an animal model of peripheral VA-ECMO to study the physiology of differential hypoxia. Their findings support a dual circuit hypothesis, and show how different cannulation strategies can disrupt the two circuits. In particular, strategies that increase venous oxygen saturations in the pulmonary artery can have a large effect on oxygenation saturation in the ascending aorta. The authors provide evidence supporting the use of veno-arterial-venous ECMO in patients who require peripheral VA-ECMO but have simultaneous respiratory failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 13% |
| Norway | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 19% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 24% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,769,829
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,864
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,534
of 397,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#230
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 397,340 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 50% of its contemporaries.