↓ Skip to main content

Sedation in Critically Ill Children with Respiratory Failure

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Sedation in Critically Ill Children with Respiratory Failure
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fped.2016.00089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nienke J. Vet, Niina Kleiber, Erwin Ista, Matthijs de Hoog, Saskia N. de Wildt

Abstract

This article discusses the rationale of sedation in respiratory failure, sedation goals, how to assess the need for sedation as well as effectiveness of interventions in critically ill children, with validated observational sedation scales. The drugs and non-pharmacological approaches used for optimal sedation in ventilated children are reviewed, and specifically the rationale for drug selection, including short- and long-term efficacy and safety aspects of the selected drugs. The specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of sedative drugs in the critically ill child and consequences for dosing are presented. Furthermore, we discuss different sedation strategies and their adverse events, such as iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium. These principles can guide clinicians in the choice of sedative drugs in pediatric respiratory failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#13,350,796
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#1,657
of 6,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,668
of 343,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#17
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 343,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.