↓ Skip to main content

Behavior of lung ultrasound findings during spontaneous breathing trial

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Behavior of lung ultrasound findings during spontaneous breathing trial
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, August 2017
DOI 10.5935/0103-507x.20170038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio, Ana Carolina Peçanha, Teixeira, Cassiano, Castro, Priscylla Souza, Savi, Augusto, Maccari, Juçara Gasparetto, Oliveira, Roselaine Pinheiro, Knorst, Marli Maria

Abstract

We aimed to investigate a potential association between B-lines and weaning failure. Fifty-seven subjects eligible for ventilation liberation were enrolled. Patients with tracheostomy were excluded. Lung ultrasound assessments of six thoracic zones were performed immediately before and at the exnd of the spontaneous breathing trial. B-predominance was defined as any profile with anterior bilateral B-pattern. Patients were followed up to 48 hours after extubation. Thirty-eight individuals were successfully extubated; 11 failed the spontaneous breathing trial and 8 needed reintubation within 48 hours of extubation. At the beginning of the T-piece trial, B-pattern or consolidation was already found at the lower and posterior lung regions in more than half of the individuals and remained non-aerated at the end of the trial. A trend toward loss of lung aeration during spontaneous breathing trials was observed only in the spontaneous breathing trial-failure group (p = 0.07), and there was higher B-predominance at the end of the trial (p = 0.01). A loss of lung aeration during the spontaneous breathing trial in non-dependent lung zones was demonstrated in subjects who failed to wean.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 24%
Other 7 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 19%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Unknown 12 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#11,588,657
of 13,044,081 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#155
of 204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,599
of 270,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 270,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them