↓ Skip to main content

High-flow nasal cannula therapy for respiratory support in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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
High-flow nasal cannula therapy for respiratory support in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009850.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Mayfield, Jacqueline Jauncey-Cooke, Judith L Hough, Andreas Schibler, Kristen Gibbons, Fiona Bogossian

Abstract

Respiratory support is a central component of the management of critically ill children. It can be delivered invasively via an endotracheal tube or non-invasively via face mask, nasal mask, nasal cannula or oxygen hood/tent. Invasive ventilation can be damaging to the lungs, and the tendency to use non-invasive forms is growing. However, non-invasive delivery is often poorly tolerated by children. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery is a relatively new therapy that shows the potential to reduce the need for intubation and be better tolerated by children than other non-invasive forms of support. HFNC therapy differs from other non-invasive forms of treatment in that it delivers heated, humidified and blended air/oxygen via nasal cannula at rates > 2 L/kg/min. This allows the user to deliver high concentrations of oxygen and to potentially deliver continuous distending pressure; this treatment often is better tolerated by the child.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 238 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 33 14%
Other 27 11%
Student > Master 27 11%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Other 65 27%
Unknown 44 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Engineering 5 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 59 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#863,770
of 15,927,389 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,383
of 11,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,157
of 225,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,927,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 225,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 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 71% of its contemporaries.