↓ Skip to main content

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
19 tweeters
4 Facebook pages


54 Dimensions

Readers on

261 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.
High-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004085.pub4
Pubmed ID

Sachin Sud, Maneesh Sud, Jan O Friedrich, Hannah Wunsch, Maureen O Meade, Niall D Ferguson, Neill KJ Adhikari


High-frequency oscillation (HFO) is an alternative to conventional mechanical ventilation that is sometimes used to treat people with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but effects on oxygenation, mortality and adverse clinical outcomes are uncertain. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2013 and again in 2015. To determine the effects of HFO compared to conventional mechanical ventilation on physiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and mortality when used for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and ISI, from inception to December 2015. We conducted the original search in 2002. We manually searched reference lists from included studies and review articles; searched conference proceedings of the American Thoracic Society (1994 to 2015), Society of Critical Care Medicine (1994 to 2015), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (1994 to 2015), and American College of Chest Physicians (1994 to 2015); contacted clinical experts in the field; and searched for unpublished and ongoing trials in clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment using HFO with conventional mechanical ventilation for children and adults diagnosed with ARDS. Three review authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. We used random-effects models in the analyses. We include 10 RCTs (n = 1850); almost all participants had moderate or severe ARDS. For the primary analysis, the risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in five studies; the overall quality of evidence was very low due to imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and methodologic limitations. In participants randomized to HFO, there was no significant difference in hospital or 30-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.16; P = 0.46, I² = 66%; 8 trials, 1779 participants, 807 deaths) compared with conventional ventilation. One large multicentre RCT was terminated early because of increased mortality in participants randomized to HFO compared to mechanical ventilation with low tidal volume and high positive end expiratory pressure, with HFO reserved only as a rescue therapy. We found substantial between-trial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 0% to 66%) for clinical outcomes, including mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review suggest that HFO does not reduce hospital and 30-day mortality due to ARDS; the quality of evidence was very low. Our findings do not support the use of HFO as a first-line strategy in people undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 257 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Other 28 11%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 46 18%
Unknown 81 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 13%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 91 35%

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 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
of 23,530,272 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 301,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,530,272 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 12,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 301,990 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 270 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 67% of its contemporaries.