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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Randomised controlled trial of weaning strategies for preterm infants on nasal continuous positive airway pressure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-015-0462-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Tang, Shelley Reid, Tracey Lutz, Girvan Malcolm, Sue Oliver, David Andrew Osborn |
| Abstract |
The optimal strategy for weaning very preterm infants from nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is unclear. Reported strategies include weaning NCPAP to a predefined pressure then trialling stopping completely (abrupt wean); alternate periods of increased time off NCPAP whilst reducing time on until the infant is completely weaned (gradual wean); and using high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to assist the weaning process. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal weaning from NCPAP strategy for very preterm infants. A pilot single centre, factorial design, 4-arm randomised controlled trial. Sixty infants born <30 weeks gestation meeting stability criteria on NCPAP were randomly allocated to one of four groups. Group 1: abrupt wean with HFNC; Group 2: abrupt wean without HFNC; Group 3: gradual wean with HFNC; Group 4: gradual wean without HFNC. The primary outcomes were duration of respiratory support, chronic lung disease, length of hospital stay and time to full suck feeds. The primary outcome measures were not significantly different between groups. Group 1 had a significant reduction in duration of NCPAP (group 1: median 1 day; group 2: 24 days; group 3: 15 days; group 4: 24 days; p = 0.002) and earlier corrected gestational age off NCPAP. There was a significant difference in rate of parental withdrawal from the study, with group 2 having the highest rate. Group 3 had a significantly increased duration on HFNC compared to group 1. Use of high flow nasal cannula may be effective at weaning infants from NCPAP but did not reduce duration of respiratory support or time to full suck feeds. Abrupt wean without the use of HFNC was associated with an increased rate of withdrawal by parent request. This study is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( www.anzctr.org.au/ ). (Registration Number = ACTRN12610001003066 ). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 24% |
| Unknown | 35 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 43 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#5,901,975
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,054
of 3,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,323
of 278,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#18
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 278,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.