↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Treatment of respiratory failure in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of respiratory failure in COPD
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2008
DOI 10.2147/copd.s3814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Budweiser, Rudolf A Jörres, Michael Pfeifer

Abstract

Patients with advanced COPD and acute or chronic respiratory failure are at high risk for death. Beyond pharmacological treatment, supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation are major treatment options. This review describes the physiological concepts underlying respiratory failure and its therapy, as well as important treatment outcomes. The rationale for the controlled supply of oxygen in acute hypoxic respiratory failure is undisputed. There is also a clear survival benefit from long-term oxygen therapy in patients withchronic hypoxia, while in mild, nocturnal, or exercise-induced hypoxemia such long-term benefits appear questionable. Furthermore, much evidence supports the use of non-invasive positivepressure ventilation in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. It application reduces intubation and mortality rates, and the duration of intensive care unit or hospital stays, particularly in the presence of mild to moderate respiratory acidosis. COPD with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failurebecame a major indication for domiciliary mechanical ventilation, based on pathophysiological reasoning and on data regarding symptoms and quality of life. Still, however, its relevance for long-term survival has to be substantiated in prospective controlled studies. Such studies might preferentially recruit patients with repeated hypercapnic decompensation or a high risk for death, while ensuring effective ventilation and the patients' adherence to therapy.

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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 211 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 51 23%
Student > Master 28 13%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Other 17 8%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 51 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Engineering 7 3%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 65 29%
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 08 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,613
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,979
of 179,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 179,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.