| Title |
The optimum timing to wean invasive ventilation for patients with AECOPD or COPD with pulmonary infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s96541 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuanlin Song, Rongchang Chen, Qingyuan Zhan, Shujing Chen, Zujin Luo, Jiaxian Ou, Chen Wang |
| Abstract |
COPD is characterized by a progressive decline in lung function and mental and physical comorbidities. It is a significant burden worldwide due to its growing prevalence, comorbidities, and mortality. Complication by bronchial-pulmonary infection causes 50%-90% of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), which may lead to the aggregation of COPD symptoms and the development of acute respiratory failure. Non-invasive or invasive ventilation (IV) is usually implemented to treat acute respiratory failure. However, ventilatory support (mainly IV) should be discarded as soon as possible to prevent the onset of time-dependent complications. To withdraw IV, an optimum timing has to be selected based on weaning assessment and spontaneous breathing trial or replacement of IV by non-IV at pulmonary infection control window. The former method is more suitable for patients with AECOPD without significant bronchial-pulmonary infection while the latter method is more suitable for patients with AECOPD with acute significant bronchial-pulmonary infection. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 20% |
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,731
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,490
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#56
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.