The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Tracheotomy in the intensive care unit: guidelines from a French expert panel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-018-0381-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Louis Trouillet, Olivier Collange, Fouad Belafia, François Blot, Gilles Capellier, Eric Cesareo, Jean-Michel Constantin, Alexandre Demoule, Jean-Luc Diehl, Pierre-Grégoire Guinot, Franck Jegoux, Erwan L’Her, Charles-Edouard Luyt, Yazine Mahjoub, Julien Mayaux, Hervé Quintard, François Ravat, Sebastien Vergez, Julien Amour, Max Guillot |
| Abstract |
Tracheotomy is widely used in intensive care units, albeit with great disparities between medical teams in terms of frequency and modality. Indications and techniques are, however, associated with variable levels of evidence based on inhomogeneous or even contradictory literature. Our aim was to conduct a systematic analysis of the published data in order to provide guidelines. We present herein recommendations for the use of tracheotomy in adult critically ill patients developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. These guidelines were conducted by a group of experts from the French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française) and the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Francaise d'Anesthésie Réanimation) with the participation of the French Emergency Medicine Association (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence), the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology. Sixteen experts and two coordinators agreed to consider questions concerning tracheotomy and its practical implementation. Five topics were defined: indications and contraindications for tracheotomy in intensive care, tracheotomy techniques in intensive care, modalities of tracheotomy in intensive care, management of patients undergoing tracheotomy in intensive care, and decannulation in intensive care. The summary made by the experts and the application of GRADE methodology led to the drawing up of 8 formal guidelines, 10 recommendations, and 3 treatment protocols. Among the 8 formal guidelines, 2 have a high level of proof (Grade 1+/-) and 6 a low level of proof (Grade 2+/-). For the 10 recommendations, GRADE methodology was not applicable and instead 10 expert opinions were produced. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 7% |
| Chile | 3 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Cuba | 1 | 1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 64 | 74% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 74 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 10% |
| Scientists | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 186 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 19% |
| Unknown | 56 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 84 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 66 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 29 February 2020.
All research outputs
#723,108
of 26,605,615 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#69
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,847
of 356,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,605,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 356,217 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.