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 |
High‐flow nasal cannula therapy for respiratory support in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009850.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Mayfield, Jacqueline Jauncey‐Cooke, Judith L Hough, Andreas Schibler, Kristen Gibbons, Fiona Bogossian |
| Abstract |
Respiratory support is a central component of the management of critically ill children. It can be delivered invasively via an endotracheal tube or non-invasively via face mask, nasal mask, nasal cannula or oxygen hood/tent. Invasive ventilation can be damaging to the lungs, and the tendency to use non-invasive forms is growing. However, non-invasive delivery is often poorly tolerated by children. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery is a relatively new therapy that shows the potential to reduce the need for intubation and be better tolerated by children than other non-invasive forms of support. HFNC therapy differs from other non-invasive forms of treatment in that it delivers heated, humidified and blended air/oxygen via nasal cannula at rates > 2 L/kg/min. This allows the user to deliver high concentrations of oxygen and to potentially deliver continuous distending pressure; this treatment often is better tolerated by the child. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| South Africa | 1 | 8% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Georgia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 354 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 10% |
| Other | 31 | 9% |
| Researcher | 31 | 9% |
| Other | 81 | 23% |
| Unknown | 103 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 161 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 26 | 7% |
| Unknown | 118 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,555,216
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,342
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,329
of 236,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 236,255 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.