↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Surfactant treatment before first breath for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm lambs: comparison of a peptide-containing synthetic lung surfactant with porcine-derived surfactant

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Surfactant treatment before first breath for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm lambs: comparison of a peptide-containing synthetic lung surfactant with porcine-derived surfactant
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s47270
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johann M van Zyl, Johan Smith

Abstract

In a recent study utilizing a saline-lavaged adult rabbit model, we described a significant improvement in systemic oxygenation and pulmonary shunt after the instillation of a novel synthetic peptide-containing surfactant, Synsurf. Respiratory distress syndrome in the preterm lamb more closely resembles that of the human infant, as their blood gas, pH values, and lung mechanics deteriorate dramatically from birth despite ventilator support. Moreover, premature lambs have lungs which are mechanically unstable, with the advantage of being able to measure multiple variables over extended periods. Our objective in this study was to investigate if Synsurf leads to improved systemic oxygenation, lung mechanics, and histology in comparison to the commercially available porcine-derived lung surfactant Curosurf® when administered before first breath in a preterm lamb model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 28%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,348,158
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#478
of 2,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,564
of 211,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 211,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.