| Title |
Extracorporeal life support for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: report of a Consensus Conference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2110-5820-4-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Richard, Laurent Argaud, Alice Blet, Thierry Boulain, Laetitia Contentin, Agnès Dechartres, Jean-Marc Dejode, Laurence Donetti, Muriel Fartoukh, Dominique Fletcher, Khaldoun Kuteifan, Sigismond Lasocki, Jean-Michel Liet, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Hervé Mal, Eric Maury, David Osman, Hervé Outin, Jean-Christophe Richard, Francis Schneider, Fabienne Tamion |
| Abstract |
The influenza H1N1 epidemics in 2009 led a substantial number of people to develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. In these patients, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used as rescue oxygenation therapy. Several randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggested that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation associated with protective mechanical ventilation could improve outcome, but its efficacy remains uncertain. Organized by the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF) in conjunction with the Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR), the Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF), the Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et d'Urgences Pédiatriques (GFRUP), the Société Française de Perfusion (SOFRAPERF), the Société Française de Chirurgie Thoracique et Cardiovasculaire (SFCTV) et the Sociedad Española de Medecina Intensiva Critica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), a Consensus Conference was held in December 2013 and a jury of 13 members wrote 65 recommendations to answer the five following questions regarding the place of extracorporeal life support for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: 1) What are the available techniques?; 2) Which patients could benefit from extracorporeal life support?; 3) How to perform extracorporeal life support?; 4) How and when to stop extracorporeal life support?; 5) Which organization should be recommended? To write the recommendations, evidence-based medicine (GRADE method), expert panel opinions, and shared decisions taken by all the thirteen members of the jury of the Consensus Conference were taken into account. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| France | 2 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 68% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 20% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 18% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 28% |
| Unknown | 15 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 66% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,873,452
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#231
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,145
of 240,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 240,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.