↓ Skip to main content

The management of children with bronchiolitis in the Australasian hospital setting: development of a clinical practice guideline

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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 management of children with bronchiolitis in the Australasian hospital setting: development of a clinical practice guideline
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0478-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon O’Brien, Sally Wilson, Fenella J. Gill, Elizabeth Cotterell, Meredith L Borland, Edward Oakley, Stuart R Dalziel

Abstract

Bronchiolitis is the commonest respiratory infection in children less than 12 months and cause of hospitalisation in infants under 6 months of age in Australasia. Unfortunately there is substantial variation in management, despite high levels of supporting evidence. This paper reports on the process, strengths and challenges of the hybrid approach used to develop the first Australasian management guideline relevant to the local population. An adaption of the nine steps recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were utilised. Following establishment of the Guideline Development Committee (GDC), we identified the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and time of interest (PICOt) questions, undertook a systematic literature search and graded the evidence and recommendations using the NHMRC and GRADE processes. Using Nominal Group Techniques (NGT), consensus was sought in formulating the clinical practice recommendations and practice points. Key health professional bodies were consulted to ensure relevance in the Australasian emergency and ward settings. From 33 PICOT questions, clinical recommendations for practice that were deemed relevant to the Australasian population were identified. Specific considerations for the management of Australian and New Zealand indigenous infants in relation to the use of azithromycin and risk factors for more serious illness are included. Using NGT, consensus demonstrated by a median Likert score > 8 for all recommendations was achieved. The guideline presents clinical guidance, followed by the key recommendations and evidence review behind each recommendation. Developing evidence-based clinical guidelines is a complex process with considerable challenges. Challenges included having committee members located over two countries and five time zones, large volume of literature and variation of member's knowledge of grading of evidence and recommendations. The GRADE and NHMRC processes provided a systematic and transparent approach ensuring a final structure including bedside interface, and a descriptive summary of the evidence base and tables for each key statement. Involvement of stakeholders who will ultimately be end-users as members of the GDC provided valuable knowledge. Lessons learnt during this guideline development process provide valuable insight for those planning development of evidence-based guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 21%
Unspecified 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Unspecified 5 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#680,980
of 14,484,925 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#95
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,071
of 362,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,484,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 362,869 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them