↓ Skip to main content

Non-Invasive Monitoring of Cardiac Output in Critical Care Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-Invasive Monitoring of Cardiac Output in Critical Care Medicine
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee S. Nguyen, Pierre Squara

Abstract

Critically ill patients require close hemodynamic monitoring to titrate treatment on a regular basis. It allows administering fluid with parsimony and adjusting inotropes and vasoactive drugs when necessary. Although invasive monitoring is considered as the reference method, non-invasive monitoring presents the obvious advantage of being associated with fewer complications, at the expanse of accuracy, precision, and step-response change. A great many methods and devices are now used over the world, and this article focuses on several of them, providing with a brief review of related underlying physical principles and validation articles analysis. Reviewed methods include electrical bioimpedance and bioreactance, respiratory-derived cardiac output (CO) monitoring technique, pulse wave transit time, ultrasound CO monitoring, multimodal algorithmic estimation, and inductance thoracocardiography. Quality criteria with which devices were reviewed included: accuracy (closeness of agreement between a measurement value and a true value of the measured), precision (closeness of agreement between replicate measurements on the same or similar objects under specified conditions), and step response change (delay between physiological change and its indication). Our conclusion is that the offer of non-invasive monitoring has improved in the past few years, even though further developments are needed to provide clinicians with sufficiently accurate devices for routine use, as alternative to invasive monitoring devices.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 14%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 40 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 49%
Engineering 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 48 33%
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 July 2021.
All research outputs
#14,959,314
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,769
of 5,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,942
of 437,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#41
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 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 5,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 437,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.