↓ Skip to main content

Pediatric ECMO Research: The Case for Collaboration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Pediatric ECMO Research: The Case for Collaboration
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melania M. Bembea, Aparna Hoskote, Anne-Marie Guerguerian

Abstract

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the pediatric age has increased considerably in the last decade, as has the complexity of cases and the variety of indications outside of the neonatal age. However, no randomized controlled trials have been attempted to date to test ECMO as an intervention in non-neonatal pediatric patients with critical illness. In this review, we provide a brief overview of the history of clinical research in pediatric ECMO and discuss methodological challenges including heterogeneity of ages and diagnoses in the pediatric ECMO population, rapid advances in technology and clinical practice related to ECMO, feasibility of enrolling critically ill children on ECMO in clinical research studies, and variability in ECMO management across institutions and countries. Lastly, we discuss opportunities and existing infrastructure for future multicenter, multi-network research collaborations for pediatric ECMO studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,180,596
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#1,306
of 7,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,769
of 342,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#30
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 342,772 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 70% of its contemporaries.