| Title |
Use of high flow nasal cannula in critically ill infants, children, and adults: a critical review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-012-2743-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Hau Lee, Kyle J. Rehder, Lee Williford, Ira M. Cheifetz, David A. Turner |
| Abstract |
High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) systems utilize higher gas flow rates than standard nasal cannulae. The use of HFNC as a respiratory support modality is increasing in the infant, pediatric, and adult populations as an alternative to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 2 | 29% |
| Argentina | 2 | 29% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 389 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 62 | 16% |
| Researcher | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 107 | 27% |
| Unknown | 70 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 253 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 4% |
| Unknown | 83 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,935,437
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,486
of 4,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,687
of 180,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#3
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 180,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.