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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical review: Humidifiers during non-invasive ventilation - key topics and practical implications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10534 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio M Esquinas Rodriguez, Raffaele Scala, Arie Soroksky, Ahmed BaHammam, Alan de Klerk, Arschang Valipour, Davide Chiumello, Claude Martin, Anne E Holland |
| Abstract |
Inadequate gas conditioning during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can impair the anatomy and function of nasal mucosa. The resulting symptoms may have a negative effect on patients' adherence to ventilatory treatment, especially for chronic use. Several parameters, mostly technical aspects of NIV, contribute to inefficient gas conditioning. Factors affecting airway humidity during NIV include inspiratory flow, inspiratory oxygen fraction, leaks, type of ventilator, interface used to deliver NIV, temperature and pressure of inhaled gas, and type of humidifier. The correct application of a humidification system may avoid the effects of NIV-induced drying of the airway. This brief review analyses the consequences of airway dryness in patients receiving NIV and the technical tools necessary to guarantee adequate gas conditioning during ventilatory treatment. Open questions remain about the timing of gas conditioning for acute or chronic settings, the choice and type of humidification device, the interaction between the humidifier and the underlying disease, and the effects of individual humidification systems on delivered humidity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 34 | 27% |
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 15 February 2012.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,876
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,473
of 254,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#87
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 254,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.