↓ Skip to main content

Validation of carbon dioxide production (VCO2) as a tool to calculate resting energy expenditure (REE) in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Validation of carbon dioxide production (VCO2) as a tool to calculate resting energy expenditure (REE) in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a retrospective observational study
Published in
Critical Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2108-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Kagan, O. Zusman, I. Bendavid, M. Theilla, J. Cohen, P. Singer

Abstract

Indirect calorimetry (IC) measurement is considered the gold standard for the assessment of resting energy expenditure (REE). It is based on the measurement of oxygen and carbon dioxide consumption (VO2 and VCO2, respectively). However, its use is limited by cost and technical issues. It has been proposed that, in critically ill patients, the analysis of VCO2 obtained from the ventilator alone may be used as an accurate method to assess REE in ventilated patients. This retrospective study aimed to assess the accuracy of VCO2 measurement alone in the determination of REE. This was a retrospective study conducted at the general intensive care unit of a single university-affiliated tertiary medical center. Patients included were invasively ventilated and their REE was measured by using IC. The respiratory quotients (RQs) were set at 0.8, 0.85, and 0.89. Data were collected from computerized patient files. REE obtained from the ventilator by using VCO2 (REE-VCO2) alone was compared with REE obtained from IC (REE-IC). Measurements were obtained for 80 patients, and 497 REE-IC measurements were compared with REE-VCO2 obtained at the same time. The mean REE-IC was 2059.5 ± 491.7 kcal/d. The mean REE-RQs corresponding to RQs of 0.80, 0.85, and 0.89 were 1936.8 ± 680.0, 2017.8 ± 708.8, and 2122.1 ± 745.4 kcal/d, respectively. REE-VCO2 derived from an RQ of 0.85 had the lowest mean difference from REE-IC. Whereas accuracy was higher using an RQ of 0.85, agreement (between 85% and 115%) was highest using an RQ of 0.89. The level of agreement of REE obtained from VCO2 readings with REE obtained from IC was generally low. IC continues to be the recommended method for REE assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 28 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,052,466
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,836
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,096
of 341,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 341,622 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.