↓ Skip to main content

Lung volumes and lung volume recruitment in ARDS: a comparison between supine and prone position

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2018
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Lung volumes and lung volume recruitment in ARDS: a comparison between supine and prone position
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0371-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hernan Aguirre-Bermeo, Marta Turella, Maddalena Bitondo, Juan Grandjean, Stefano Italiano, Olimpia Festa, Indalecio Morán, Jordi Mancebo

Abstract

The use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone position (PP) is common in the management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (ARDS). We conducted this study to analyze the variation in lung volumes and PEEP-induced lung volume recruitment with the change from supine position (SP) to PP in ARDS patients. The investigation was conducted in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Patients who met the clinical criteria of the Berlin definition for ARDS were included. The responsible physician set basal PEEP. To avoid hypoxemia, FiO2was increased to 0.8 1 h before starting the protocol. End-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and functional residual capacity (FRC) were measured using the nitrogen washout/washin technique. After the procedures in SP, the patients were turned to PP and 1 h later the same procedures were made in PP. Twenty-three patients were included in the study, and twenty were analyzed. The change from SP to PP significantly increased FRC (from 965 ± 397 to 1140 ± 490 ml, p = 0.008) and EELV (from 1566 ± 476 to 1832 ± 719 ml, p = 0.008), but PEEP-induced lung volume recruitment did not significantly change (269 ± 186 ml in SP to 324 ± 188 ml in PP, p = 0.263). Dynamic strain at PEEP decreased with the change from SP to PP (0.38 ± 0.14 to 0.33 ± 0.13, p = 0.040). As compared to supine, prone position increases resting lung volumes and decreases dynamic lung strain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 34 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,174,124
of 25,284,710 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#275
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,888
of 458,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,284,710 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 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 76% 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 458,537 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.