| 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 De Simone, Guillaume Jegou, Erwan L’Her |
| 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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 29% |
| Engineering | 9 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
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
#18,560,904
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#922
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,835
of 316,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#20
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. 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 316,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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.