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 |
Impact of Compression Stockings vs. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Overnight Fluid Shift and Obstructive Sleep Apnea among Patients on Hemodialysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2017.00057 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno C. Silva, Roberto S. S. Santos, Luciano F. Drager, Fernando M. Coelho, Rosilene M. Elias |
| Abstract |
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in edematous states, notably in hemodialysis patients. In this population, overnight fluid shift can play an important role on the pathogenesis of OSA. The effect of compression stockings (CS) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on fluid shift is barely known. We compared the effects of CS and CPAP on fluid dynamics in a sample of patients with OSA in hemodialysis, through a randomized crossover study. Each participant performed polysomnography (PSG) at baseline, during CPAP titration, and after 1 week of wearing CS. Neck circumference (NC) and segmental bioelectrical impedance were done before and after PSG. Fourteen patients were studied (53 ± 9 years; 57% men; body mass index 29.7 ± 6.8 kg/m(2)). Apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) decreased from 20.8 (14.2; 39.6) at baseline to 7.9 (2.8; 25.4) during CPAP titration and to 16.7 (3.5; 28.9) events/h after wearing CS (CPAP vs. baseline, p = 0.004; CS vs. baseline, p = 0.017; and CPAP vs. CS, p = 0.017). Nocturnal intracellular trunk water was higher after wearing CS in comparison to baseline and CPAP (p = 0.03). CS reduced the fluid accumulated in lower limbs during the day, although not significantly. Overnight fluid shift at baseline, CPAP, and CS was -183 ± 72, -343 ± 220, and -290 ± 213 ml, respectively (p = 0.006). Overnight NC increased at baseline (0.7 ± 0.4 cm), decreased after CPAP (-1.0 ± 0.4 cm), and while wearing CS (-0.4 ± 0.8 cm) (CPAP vs. baseline, p < 0.0001; CS vs. baseline, p = 0.001; CPAP vs. CS, p = 0.01). CS reduced AHI by avoiding fluid retention in the legs, favoring accumulation of water in the intracellular component of the trunk, thus avoiding fluid shift to reach the neck. CPAP improved OSA by exerting local pressure on upper airway, with no impact on fluid redistribution. CPAP performed significantly better than CS for both reduction of AHI and overnight reduction of NC. Complementary studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which CPAP and CS reduce NC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
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 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,969
of 5,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,344
of 312,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#46
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 312,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.