↓ Skip to main content

Electrophrenic Ventilation: A Different Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Article details
Title
Electrophrenic Ventilation: A Different Perspective
Published in
Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, June 2016
DOI 10.1080/01952307.1991.11735829
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Since 1972, radio-frequency electrophrenic nerve pacing (EPP) has been an option for assisting the ventilation of patients with chronic paralytic respiratory insufficiency. Most of the medical literature has been favorable regarding its continued application. We reviewed the literature to determine how "successful" application of EPP was defined. Our studies indicated that long-term follow-up of EPP patients has been generally inadequate with little emphasis placed on incidence and severity of complications. There was no standardization in defining successful experiences with EPP. Upper airway instability during pacing, lack of internal pacemaker alarms, and the risk of sudden pacemaker failure necessitate permanent tracheostomy in the great majority of patients but complications of the presence of a tracheostomy were not considered in evaluating the desirability of EPP. Some EPP patients became independent of any ventilatory support thus benefiting minimally from the time commitment, effort, and extreme expense needed for EPP placement and training. We conclude that EPP is a valid option for the properly screened patient but that expense, failure rate, morbidity and mortality remain excessive and that alternative methods of ventilatory support should be explored.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 33%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 47%
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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,425,845
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Paraplegia Society
#12
of 34 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,537
of 344,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Paraplegia Society
#10
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one scored the same or higher as 22 of them.
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 344,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.