↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for critically ill adults in the emergency department: history, current applications, and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
174 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 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 (ECMO) for critically ill adults in the emergency department: history, current applications, and future directions
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1155-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jarrod M. Mosier, Melissa Kelsey, Yuval Raz, Kyle J. Gunnerson, Robyn Meyer, Cameron D. Hypes, Josh Malo, Sage P. Whitmore, Daniel W. Spaite

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a mode of extracorporeal life support that augments oxygenation, ventilation and/or cardiac output via cannulae connected to a circuit that pumps blood through an oxygenator and back into the patient. ECMO has been used for decades to support cardiopulmonary disease refractory to conventional therapy. While not robust, there are promising data for the use of ECMO in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock and the potential indications for ECMO continue to increase. This review discusses the existing literature on the potential use of ECMO in critically ill patients within the emergency department.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 174 tweeters 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 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 309 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 12%
Student > Master 34 11%
Other 33 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Other 82 26%
Unknown 64 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 9%
Engineering 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 19 6%
Unknown 72 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 06 November 2021.
All research outputs
#290,466
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#145
of 6,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,221
of 387,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 575 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 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 6,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. 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 387,650 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 575 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 98% of its contemporaries.