↓ Skip to main content

The use of high-flow nasal cannula in the pediatric emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
The use of high-flow nasal cannula in the pediatric emergency department
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2017.06.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine N. Slain, Steven L. Shein, Alexandre T. Rotta

Abstract

To summarize the current literature describing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in children, the components and mechanisms of action of a HFNC system, the appropriate clinical applications, and its role in the pediatric emergency department (ED). A computer-based search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar for literature on HFNC use in children was performed. HFNC, a non-invasive respiratory support modality, provides heated and fully humidified gas mixtures to patients via a nasal cannula interface. HFNC likely supports respiration though reduced inspiratory resistance, washout of the nasopharyngeal dead space, reduced metabolic work related to gas conditioning, improved airway conductance and mucociliary clearance, and provision of low levels of positive airway pressure. Most data describing HFNC use in children focuses on those with bronchiolitis, although HFNC has been used in children with other respiratory disease. Introduction of HFNC into clinical practice, including in the ED, has been associated with decreased rates of endotracheal intubation. Limited prospective interventional data suggest that HFNC may be similarly efficacious as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and more efficacious than standard oxygen therapy for some patients. Patient characteristics, such as improved tachycardia and tachypnea, have been associated with a lack of progression to endotracheal intubation. Reported adverse effects are rare. HFNC should be considered for pediatric ED patients with respiratory distress not requiring immediate endotracheal intubation; prospective, pediatric ED-specific trials are needed to better determine responsive patient populations, ideal HFNC settings, and comparative efficacy vs. other respiratory support modalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 32 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Engineering 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 38 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,283,318
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#360
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,204
of 326,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#18
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 326,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 52% of its contemporaries.