↓ Skip to main content

A new global and comprehensive model for ICU ventilator performances evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
A new global and comprehensive model for ICU ventilator performances evaluation
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0285-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas S. Marjanovic, Agathe Simone, Guillaume Jegou, Erwan L’Her, Agathe De Simone

Abstract

This study aimed to provide a new global and comprehensive evaluation of recent ICU ventilators taking into account both technical performances and ergonomics. Six recent ICU ventilators were evaluated. Technical performances were assessed under two FIO2 levels (100%, 50%), three respiratory mechanics combinations (Normal: compliance [C] = 70 mL cmH2O(-1)/resistance [R] = 5 cmH2O L(-1) s(-1); Restrictive: C = 30/R = 10; Obstructive: C = 120/R = 20), four exponential levels of leaks (from 0 to 12.5 L min(-1)) and three levels of inspiratory effort (P0.1 = 2, 4 and 8 cmH2O), using an automated test lung. Ergonomics were evaluated by 20 ICU physicians using a global and comprehensive model involving physiological response to stress measurements (heart rate, respiratory rate, tidal volume variability and eye tracking), psycho-cognitive scales (SUS and NASA-TLX) and objective tasks completion. Few differences in terms of technical performance were observed between devices. Non-invasive ventilation modes had a huge influence on asynchrony occurrence. Using our global model, either objective tasks completion, psycho-cognitive scales and/or physiological measurements were able to depict significant differences in terms of devices' usability. The level of failure that was observed with some devices depicted the lack of adaptation of device's development to end users' requests. Despite similar technical performance, some ICU ventilators exhibit low ergonomics performance and a high risk of misusage.

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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Engineering 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 30%

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 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#9,447,128
of 11,823,343 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#393
of 463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,073
of 263,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,823,343 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 263,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.