↓ Skip to main content

Management of acute bronchiolitis in emergency wards in Spain: variability and appropriateness analysis (aBREVIADo Project)

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
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
Management of acute bronchiolitis in emergency wards in Spain: variability and appropriateness analysis (aBREVIADo Project)
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00431-012-1683-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Ochoa Sangrador, Javier González de Dios, Research Group of the aBREVIADo Project (Bronchiolitis—Study of Variability, Adequacy, and Adherence)

Abstract

Most patients with acute bronchiolitis have a mild course and only require outpatient care. However, some of them have to go to emergency departments, because they have respiratory distress or feeding problems. There, they frequently receive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. We want to know the variability and appropriateness of these procedures. A cross-sectional study (October 2007 to March 2008) was carried out on 2,430 diagnosed cases of bronchiolitis in hospital emergency departments, which required no hospitalization. An analysis of the appropriateness of the treatments was made in 2,032 cases gathered in ten departments with at least 100 cases, using as criterion the recommendations of a consensus conference. We estimated the adjusted percentages of each department. Most of the bronchiolitis were mild, in spite that they underwent multiple diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the acute phase, different treatments were used: inhaled beta 2 agonists (61.4%), antipyretics (17.1%), oral steroids (11.3%), and nebulized adrenaline (9.3%). In the maintenance phase, the most common treatments were: inhaled beta 2 agonists (50.5%), oral steroids (17%), oral beta 2 agonists (14.9%), and antibiotics (6.1%). The 64% of the treatments used in the acute phase and the 55.9% in the maintenance phase were considered inappropriate in the appropriateness analysis; a great heterogeneity among centers was found. Conclusions: There are discrepancies between clinical practice and evidence-based management of bronchiolitis in Spanish emergency departments. Inappropriate treatments were used in more than half of patients. The wide variation between centers shows the influence of local prescribing habits and reveals the scope for improvement.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 March 2012.
All research outputs
#3,251,664
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#556
of 3,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,765
of 156,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 156,309 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.