↓ Skip to main content

Cardiorespiratory Monitoring during Neonatal Resuscitation for Direct Feedback and Audit

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Cardiorespiratory Monitoring during Neonatal Resuscitation for Direct Feedback and Audit
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fped.2016.00038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeroen J. van Vonderen, Henriëtte A. van Zanten, Kim Schilleman, Stuart B. Hooper, Marcus J. Kitchen, Ruben S. G. M. Witlox, Arjan B. te Pas

Abstract

Neonatal resuscitation is one of the most frequently performed procedures, and it is often successful if the ventilation applied is adequate. Over the last decade, interest in seeking objectivity in evaluating the infant's condition at birth or the adequacy and effect of the interventions applied has markedly increased. Clinical parameters such as heart rate, color, and chest excursions are difficult to interpret and can be very subjective and subtle. The use of ECG, pulse oximetry, capnography, and respiratory function monitoring can add objectivity to the clinical assessment. These physiological parameters, with or without the combination of video recordings, can not only be used directly to guide care but also be used later for audit and teaching purposes. Further studies are needed to investigate whether this will improve the quality of delivery room management. In this narrative review, we will give an update of the current developments in monitoring neonatal resuscitation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Lecturer 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 38%
Engineering 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 34%
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 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,320,000
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#4,142
of 5,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,403
of 299,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#43
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 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 5,988 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 299,111 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 43 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.