↓ Skip to main content

Ventilator-induced lung injury: historical perspectives and clinical implications

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2011
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Ventilator-induced lung injury: historical perspectives and clinical implications
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas de Prost, Jean-Damien Ricard, Georges Saumon, Didier Dreyfuss

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation can produce lung physiological and morphological alterations termed ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Early experimental studies demonstrated that the main determinant of VILI is lung end-inspiratory volume. The clinical relevance of these experimental findings received resounding confirmation with the results of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) Network study, which showed a 22% reduction in mortality in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome through a simple reduction in tidal volume. In contrast, the clinical relevance of low lung volume injury remains debated and the application of high positive end-expiratory pressure levels can contribute to lung overdistension and thus be deleterious. The significance of inflammatory alterations observed during VILI is debated and has not translated into clinical application. This review examines seminal experimental studies that led to our current understanding of VILI and contributed to the current recommendations in the respiratory support of ARDS patients.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Unknown 172 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 17 9%
Other 55 30%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 61%
Engineering 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 30 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,661,129
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#417
of 1,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,543
of 119,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 119,162 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.