↓ Skip to main content

Paracorporeal Lung Devices: Thinking Outside the Box

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Paracorporeal Lung Devices: Thinking Outside the Box
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy M. Maul, Jennifer S. Nelson, Peter D. Wearden

Abstract

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is a resource intensive, life-preserving support system that has seen ever-expanding clinical indications as technology and collective experience has matured. Clinicians caring for patients who develop pulmonary failure secondary to cardiac failure can find themselves in unique situations where traditional ECMO may not be the ideal clinical solution. Existing paracorporeal ventricular assist device (VAD) technology or unique patient physiologies offer the opportunity for thinking "outside the box." Hybrid ECMO approaches include splicing oxygenators into paracorporeal VAD systems and alternative cannulation strategies to provide a staged approach to transition a patient from ECMO to a VAD. Alternative technologies include the adaptation of ECMO and extracorporeal CO2 removal systems for specific physiologies and pediatric aged patients. This chapter will focus on: (1) hybrid and alternative approaches to extracorporeal support for pulmonary failure, (2) patient selection and, (3) technical considerations of these therapies. By examining the successes and challenges of the relatively select patients treated with these approaches, we hope to spur appropriate research and development to expand the clinical armamentarium of extracorporeal technology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 17 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Unspecified 8 17%
Engineering 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 November 2018.
All research outputs
#17,989,170
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,987
of 6,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,932
of 335,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#63
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 335,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.