↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive respiratory support for infants with bronchiolitis: a national survey of practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Non-invasive respiratory support for infants with bronchiolitis: a national survey of practice
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12887-017-0785-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Turnham, R. S. Agbeko, J. Furness, J. Pappachan, A. G. Sutcliffe, P. Ramnarayan

Abstract

Bronchiolitis is a common respiratory illness of early childhood. For most children it is a mild self-limiting disease but a small number of children develop respiratory failure. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) has traditionally been used to provide non-invasive respiratory support in these children, but there is little clinical trial evidence to support its use. More recently, high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has emerged as a novel respiratory support modality. Our study aims to describe current national practice and clinician preferences relating to use of non-invasive respiratory support (nCPAP and HFNC) in the management of infants (<12 months old) with acute bronchiolitis. We performed a cross-sectional web-based survey of hospitals with inpatient paediatric facilities in England and Wales. Responses were elicited from one senior doctor and one senior nurse at each hospital. We analysed the proportion of hospitals using HFNC and nCPAP; clinical thresholds for their initiation; and clinician preferences regarding first-line support modality and future research. The survey was distributed to 117 of 171 eligible hospitals; 97 hospitals provided responses (response rate: 83%). The majority of hospitals were able to provide nCPAP (89/97, 91.7%) or HFNC (71/97, 73.2%); both were available at 65 hospitals (67%). nCPAP was more likely to be delivered in a ward setting in a general hospital, and in a high dependency setting in a tertiary centre. There were differences in the oxygenation and acidosis thresholds, and clinical triggers such as recurrent apnoeas or work of breathing that influenced clinical decisions, regarding when to start nCPAP or HFNC. More individual respondents with access to both modalities (74/106, 69.8%) would choose HFNC over nCPAP as their first-line treatment option in a deteriorating child with bronchiolitis. Despite lack of randomised trial evidence, nCPAP and HFNC are commonly used in British hospitals to support infants with acute bronchiolitis. HFNC appears to be currently the preferred first-line modality for non-invasive respiratory support due to perceived ease of use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 135 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 44 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,079,964
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#670
of 3,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,850
of 421,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#20
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 421,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.