↓ Skip to main content

Benefit of educational feedback for the use of positive expiratory pressure device

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Benefit of educational feedback for the use of positive expiratory pressure device
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory Reychler, Manon Jacquemart, William Poncin, Anne-Sophie Aubriot, Giuseppe Liistro

Abstract

Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) is regularly used as a self-administered airway clearance technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate the need to teach the correct use of the PEP device and to measure the progress of the success rate of the maneuver after training. A PEP system (PariPEP-S Sytem) was used to generate PEP in 30 healthy volunteers. They were instructed by a qualified physical therapist to breathe correctly through the PEP device. Then they were evaluated during a set of ten expirations. Two other evaluations were performed at day 2 and day 8 (before and after feedback). The mean PEP and the success rate were calculated for each set of expirations. The number of maneuvers needed to obtain a correct use was calculated on the first session. An optimal PEP was reached after 7.5 SD 2.7 attempts by all subjects. Success rates and mean pressures were similar between the different sets of expirations (p=0.720 and p=0.326, respectively). Pressure variability was around 10%. After one week, 30% of subjects generated more than two non-optimal pressures in the set of ten expirations. No difference in success rate was observed depending on the evaluations. This study demonstrates that good initial training on the use of the PEP device and regular follow-up are required for the subject to reach optimal expiratory pressure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#567
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,850
of 387,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 387,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.