↓ Skip to main content

Randomized trial of physiotherapy and hypertonic saline techniques for sputum induction in asthmatic children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Randomized trial of physiotherapy and hypertonic saline techniques for sputum induction in asthmatic children and adolescents
Published in
Clinics, January 2020
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Egberto Luiz Felicio-Júnior, Viviani Barnabé, Francine Maria de Almeida, Monise Dematte Avona, Isabella Santos de Genaro, Adriana Kurdejak, Miriam Cardoso Neves Eller, Karina Pierantozzi Vergani, Joaquim Carlos Rodrigues, Iolanda de Fátima Lopes Calvo Tibério, Milton de Arruda Martins, Beatriz Mangueira Saraiva-Romanholo

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the efficiency of physiotherapy techniques in sputum induction and in the evaluation of pulmonary inflammation in asthmatic children and adolescents. Although hypertonic saline (HS) is widely used for sputum induction (SI), specific techniques and maneuvers of physiotherapy (P) may facilitate the collection of mucus in some asthmatic children and adolescents. A randomized crossover study was performed in patients with well-controlled asthma, and 90 sputum samples were collected. Children and adolescents were assessed using spirometry and randomized at entry into one of three sputum induction techniques: (i) 3% hypertonic saline - HS technique; (ii) physiotherapy (oscillatory positive expiratory pressure, forced expiration, and acceleration of expiratory flow) - P technique; and (iii) hypertonic saline + physiotherapy - HSP technique. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03136042. The total cells (mL) and the percentage (%) of differential inflammatory cells were similar in all techniques. The sputum weight (g) in the HSP technique was significantly higher than that in the HS technique. In all techniques, the percentage of viable cells was >50%, and there was no difference between the HS and P techniques. Moreover, sputum induction did not cause any alterations in the pulmonary function of patients. The physiotherapy sputum collection technique was effective in obtaining viable cells from mucus samples and yielded the same amount of sputum as the gold standard technique (hypertonic saline). In addition, the physiotherapy maneuvers were both safe and useful for sputum induction in asthmatic children and adolescents with well-controlled asthma.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%

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 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#18,888,030
of 21,241,420 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#582
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,705
of 367,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#43
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,241,420 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 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 367,181 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 50 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.