↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for the discontinuation of humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Strategies for the discontinuation of humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011079.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond C Farley, Judith L Hough, Luke A Jardine

Abstract

Humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) delivers humidified gas at increased flow rates via binasal prongs and is becoming widely accepted as a method of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants. While indications for the use of (HHFNC) and its associated risks and benefits are being investigated, the best strategy for the discontinuation of HHFNC remains unknown. At what point an infant is considered stable enough to attempt to start withdrawing their HHFNC is not known. The criteria for a failed attempt at HHFNC discontinuation is also unclear. To determine the risks and benefits of different strategies used for the discontinuation of HHFNC in preterm infants. We searched the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialized Register, PubMed (1966 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Also, we checked previous reviews, including cross references. We searched for following web sites for ongoing trials: ClinicalTrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which either individual newborn infants or clusters of infants (such as separate neonatal units) were randomised to different HHFNC withdrawal strategies (from the first time they come off HHFNC and any subsequent weaning, or withdrawal attempt, or both). We used standard methods of Cochrane and the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We identified no eligible studies examining the best strategy to wean or withdraw HHFNC once started as respiratory support in preterm infants AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence available to suggest the best strategy for weaning and withdrawing HHFNC as a respiratory support in preterm infants. Research is required into the best strategy for withdrawal of HHFNC and to which subgroups this applies. Clear criteria for the definition of stability prior to attempting to withdraw HHFNC needs to be established. Furthermore, clear definitions are needed as to what constitutes failure of HHFNC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 20%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Other 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 49%
Unspecified 15 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%

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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#11,143,454
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,180
of 234,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#234
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 234,373 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 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.