↓ Skip to main content

Advanced modes of mechanical ventilation and optimal targeting schemes

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, August 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Advanced modes of mechanical ventilation and optimal targeting schemes
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40635-018-0195-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias van der Staay, Robert L. Chatburn

Abstract

Recent research results provide new incentives to recognize and prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and create targeting schemes for new modes of mechanical ventilation. For example, minimization of breathing power, inspiratory power, and inspiratory pressure are the underlying goals of optimum targeting schemes used in the modes called adaptive support ventilation (ASV), adaptive ventilation mode 2 (AVM2), and MID-frequency ventilation (MFV). We describe the mathematical models underlying these targeting schemes and present theoretical analyses for minimizing tidal volume, tidal pressure (also known as driving pressure), or tidal power as functions of ventilatory frequency. To go beyond theoretical equations, these targeting schemes were compared in terms of expected tidal volumes using different patient models. Results indicate that at the same ventilation efficiency (same PaCO2 level), we expect tidal volume dosage in the range of 7.4 mL/kg (for ASV), 6.2 mL/kg (for AVM2), and 6.7 mL/kg (for MFV) for adult ARDS simulation. For a neonatal RDS model, we expect 5.5 mL/kg (for ASV), 4.6 mL/kg (for AVM2), and 4.5 (for MFV).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 17%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,933,716
of 25,046,944 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#53
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,155
of 339,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,944 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 527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 339,290 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 20 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 99% of its contemporaries.