The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Not Bad: Passive Leg Raising in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation-A New Modeling Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2016.00665 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yanru Zhang, María Jiménez-Herrera, Christer Axelsson, Yunzhang Cheng |
| Abstract |
Aim: To evaluate, using a simulated haemodynamic circulation model, whether passive leg raising (PLR) is able to improve the effect during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); to expose the possible reasons why PLR works or not. Materials and Methods: We adapted a circulatory model for CPR with PLR. First we compared cardiac output (CO), coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), blood flow to heart (Qheart), and blood flow to neck and brain (Qhead) of standard chest compression-only CPR with and without PLR; second we simulated the effects of PLR in different situations, by varying the thoracic pump factor (TPF) from 0 to 1; third we simulated the effects when the legs are lifted to the different heights. Finally, we compared our results with those obtained from a published clinical study. Results: According to the simulation model, (1) When TPF is in the interval (0,1), CPP, CO, Qheart, and Qhead are improved with PLR, among them with half-thoracic/half-cardiac pump effect (TPF is 0.5), CPP, CO, Qhead, and Qheart increase the most (by 14, 14, 15, and 17%). (2) When TPF is 1 (pure thoracic pump, with an emphysema or extremely thick thorax), PLR has almost no effect on CPP, CO, and Qheart (-1, 2, and 0%), whereas Qhead is increased by 9%; (3) Regardless of whether there is a cardiac or thoracic pump effect, PLR is able to increase Qhead by 9-15%. (4) When the legs are lifted to 30° to the ground, the volume transferred from legs to upper body is 36% of the initial volume in legs; when the legs are lifted to 45°, the volume transferred is 43%; when the legs are lifted to 60°, the volume transferred is 47%; when the legs are lifted to 90°, the volume transferred is 50%. Conclusion: Generally PLR is able to achieve improved cerebral perfusion and coronary perfusion. In some extreme situations, it has no effect on cardiac output and coronary perfusion, but still improves cerebral perfusion. PLR could be a beneficial supplement to CPR, and it is not necessary to lift the legs too high above the ground. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 45% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,574,299
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,330
of 15,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,910
of 432,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#51
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 432,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.