↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of height estimation and tidal volume setting using anthropometric formulas in an ICU Caucasian population

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy of height estimation and tidal volume setting using anthropometric formulas in an ICU Caucasian population
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0154-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erwan L’her, Jérôme Martin-Babau, François Lellouche

Abstract

Knowledge of patients' height is essential for daily practice in the intensive care unit. However, actual height measurements are unavailable on a daily routine in the ICU and measured height in the supine position and/or visual estimates may lack consistency. Clinicians do need simple and rapid methods to estimate the patients' height, especially in short height and/or obese patients. The objectives of the study were to evaluate several anthropometric formulas for height estimation on healthy volunteers and to test whether several of these estimates will help tidal volume setting in ICU patients. This was a prospective, observational study in a medical intensive care unit of a university hospital. During the first phase of the study, eight limb measurements were performed on 60 healthy volunteers and 18 height estimation formulas were tested. During the second phase, four height estimates were performed on 60 consecutive ICU patients under mechanical ventilation. In the 60 healthy volunteers, actual height was well correlated with the gold standard, measured height in the erect position. Correlation was low between actual and calculated height, using the hand's length and width, the index, or the foot equations. The Chumlea method and its simplified version, performed in the supine position, provided adequate estimates. In the 60 ICU patients, calculated height using the simplified Chumlea method was well correlated with measured height (r = 0.78; ∂ < 1 %). Ulna and tibia estimates also provided valuable estimates. All these height estimates allowed calculating IBW or PBW that were significantly different from the patients' actual weight on admission. In most cases, tidal volume set according to these estimates was lower than what would have been set using the actual weight. When actual height is unavailable in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, alternative anthropometric methods to obtain patient's height based on lower leg and on forearm measurements could be useful to facilitate the application of protective mechanical ventilation in a Caucasian ICU population. The simplified Chumlea method is easy to achieve in a bed-ridden patient and provides accurate height estimates, with a low bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Other 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Unspecified 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,267,420
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#757
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,886
of 353,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.