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 |
Oxygen delivery through high-flow nasal cannulae increase end-expiratory lung volume and reduce respiratory rate in post-cardiac surgical patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1093/bja/aer265 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Corley, L.R. Caruana, A.G. Barnett, O. Tronstad, J.F. Fraser |
| Abstract |
High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNCs) create positive oropharyngeal airway pressure, but it is unclear how their use affects lung volume. Electrical impedance tomography allows the assessment of changes in lung volume by measuring changes in lung impedance. Primary objectives were to investigate the effects of HFNC on airway pressure (P(aw)) and end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and to identify any correlation between the two. Secondary objectives were to investigate the effects of HFNC on respiratory rate, dyspnoea, tidal volume, and oxygenation; and the interaction between BMI and EELV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 302 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 12% |
| Researcher | 36 | 12% |
| Other | 35 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 68 | 22% |
| Unknown | 78 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 174 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 4% |
| Unknown | 87 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 10 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,629,141
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia
#1,178
of 6,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,019
of 137,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 137,060 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 90% of its contemporaries.