↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring Oxygenation and Gas Exchange in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Current Practice in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Monitoring Oxygenation and Gas Exchange in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Current Practice in the Netherlands
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fped.2015.00094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ratna N. G. B. Tan, Estelle E. M. Mulder, Enrico Lopriore, Arjan B. te Pas

Abstract

Although recommendations in oxygenation and gas exchange monitoring in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are available, little is known of the current practice. To evaluate the current practice in oxygenation and gas exchange monitoring of the NICUs in the Netherlands. An online survey-based questionnaire concerning preferences and current practice of monitoring oxygenation and gas exchange was sent out to all 107 neonatal staff members (neonatologists, neonatal fellows, and physician assistants) of the 10 NICUs in the Netherlands. The response rate was 42%. Pulse oximetry (PO), partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood gas (paO2), and oxygen saturation in arterial blood gas (saO2) was used by, respectively, 100, 80, and 27% of the staff members for monitoring oxygenation. Of all staff members, 76% considered PO as the best parameter for monitoring oxygenation, 22% paO2, and 2% saO2. Blood gas, transcutaneous gas monitoring, endotracheal gas monitoring, and near-infrared spectroscopy was used by, respectively, 100, 82, 40, and 18% of the staff members for monitoring gas exchange. During endotracheal ventilation, 67% of the caregivers would exclusively accept arterial blood gas for gas exchange monitoring. In contrast, during non-invasive ventilation, 68% of the caregivers did not prefer arterial or capillary blood gas (CBG). CBG is found reliable in infants with warm extremities by 76% of the caregivers. Venous blood gas would be accepted by 60% of the caregivers, independent of the mode of respiratory support, and only when venous blood sample was needed for other reasons. This survey identified a wide variation in preference in monitoring oxygenation and gas exchange monitoring among Dutch neonatal staff members.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 47%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,099
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#4,129
of 5,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,029
of 285,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#28
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 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 5,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. 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 285,121 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 29 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.