↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2013
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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacological interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-20
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Pharmacological interventions are commonly considered in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) are used in patients with severe hypoxemia. No outcome benefit has been observed with the systematic use of iNO. However, a sometimes important improvement in oxygenation can occur shortly after starting administration. Therefore, its ease of use and its good tolerance justify iNO optionally combined with almitirne as a rescue therapy on a trial basis. Recent data from the literature support the use of a 48-h infusion of NMBs in patients with a PaO2 to FiO2 ratio <120 mmHg. No strong evidence exists on the increase of ICU-acquired paresis after a short course of NMBs. Fluid management with the goal to obtain zero fluid balance in ARDS patients without shock or renal failure significantly increases the number of days without mechanical ventilation. On the other hand, patients with hemodynamic failure must receive early and adapted fluid resuscitation. Liberal and conservative fluid strategies therefore are complementary and should ideally follow each other in time in the same patient whose hemodynamic state progressively stabilizes. At present, albumin treatment does not appear to be justified for limitation of pulmonary edema and respiratory morbidity. Aerosolized β2-agonists do not improve outcome in patients with ARDS and one study strongly suggests that intravenous salbutamol may worsen outcome in those patients. The early use of high doses of corticosteroids for the prevention of ARDS in septic shock patients or in patients with confirmed ARDS significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation but had no effect or even increased mortality. In patients with persistent ARDS after 7 to 28 days, a randomized trial showed no reduction in mortality with moderate doses of corticosteroids but an increased PaO2 to FiO2 ratio and thoracopulmonary compliance were found, as well as shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and of ICU stay. Conflicting data exist on the interest of low doses of corticosteroids (200 mg/day of hydrocortisone) in ARDS patients. In the context of a persistent ARDS with histological proof of fibroproliferation, a corticosteroid treatment with a progressive decrease of doses can be proposed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Colombia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 93 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 17%
Student > Postgraduate 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 34 34%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 6 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,172,774
of 19,141,916 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#236
of 884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,837
of 168,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,141,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 168,308 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 88% of its contemporaries.
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