↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012067.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Kwasi Korang, Joshua Feinberg, Jørn Wetterslev, Janus C Jakobsen

Abstract

Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children and constitutes a significant economic burden. Use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the care of children with acute asthma has increased even though evidence supporting the intervention has been considered weak and clinical guidelines do not recommend the intervention. NPPV might be an effective intervention for acute asthma, but no systematic review has been conducted to assess the effects of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care in children with acute asthma. To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children with acute asthma. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR). The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception to February 2016, with no restriction on language of publication. We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children (age < 18 years) hospitalised for an acute asthma attack. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts. We retrieved all relevant full-text study reports, independently screened the full text, identified trials for inclusion and identified and recorded reasons for exclusion of ineligible trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author. We recorded the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow diagram and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table. We identified the risk of bias of included studies to reduce the risk of systematic error. We contacted relevant study authors when data were missing. We included two RCTs that randomised 20 participants to NPPV and 20 participants to control. We assessed both studies as having high risk of bias; both trials assessed effects of bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Neither trial used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Controls received standard care. Investigators reported no deaths and no serious adverse events (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision of results). Both trials showed a statistically significant reduction in symptom score. One trial did not report a standard deviation (SD), but by using an estimated SD, we found a statistically significantly reduced asthma symptom score (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03, 19 participants, GRADE: very low quality of evidence). In the other trial, NPPV was associated with a lower total symptom score (5.6 vs 1.9, 16 participants, very low quality of evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report an SD, nor could it be estimated from the first phase of the trial, before the cross-over. These gains could be clinically relevant, as a reduction of three or more points in symptom score is considered a clinically meaningful change. Researchers documented five dropouts (12.5%), four of which were due to intolerance to NPPV, and one to respiratory failure requiring intubation. Owing to insufficient reporting in the latter trial and use of different scoring systems, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis nor a Trial Sequential Analysis. Current evidence does not permit confirmation or rejection of the effects of NPPV for acute asthma in children. Large RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 121 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 23 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,579,736
of 15,323,046 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,308
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,128
of 270,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,323,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 270,436 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.