↓ Skip to main content

Single use and conventional bronchoscopes for Broncho alveolar lavage (BAL) in research: a comparative study (NCT 02515591)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Single use and conventional bronchoscopes for Broncho alveolar lavage (BAL) in research: a comparative study (NCT 02515591)
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0421-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seher Raza Zaidi, Andrea M. Collins, Elena Mitsi, Jesús Reiné, Kayleigh Davies, Angela D Wright, Jessica Owugha, Richard Fitzgerald, Amitava Ganguli, Stephen B Gordon, Daniela Mulari Ferreira, Jamie Rylance

Abstract

Broncho alveolar lavage (BAL) is widely used for investigative research to study innate, cellular and humoral immune responses, and in early phase drug trials. Conventional (multiple use) flexible bronchoscopes have time and monetary costs associated with cleaning, and carries a small risk of cross infection. Single use bronchoscopes may provide an alternative, but have not been evaluated in this context. Healthy volunteers underwent bronchoscopy at a day-case clinical research unit using the Ambu® aScope(TM) single-use flexible intubation bronchoscope. Broncho alveolar lavage was performed from a sub segmental bronchus within the right middle lobe; a total of 200 ml of warmed normal saline was instilled then aspirated using handheld suction. BAL volume yield, cell yield and viability were recorded. Ten volunteers, (mean age 23 years, six male) participated. Bronchoscopies were carried out by one of two senior bronchoscopists, experienced in the technique of obtaining BAL for research purposes. The results were compared to 50 (mean age 23, 14 male) procedures performed using the conventional scope by the same two bronchoscopists. The total volume yield was significantly higher in the disposable group median 152 ml (IQR 141-166 ml) as compared to conventional 124 ml (110-135 ml), p = <0.01. The total cell yield and viability were similar in both groups, with no significant differences. With single use bronchoscopes, we achieved a larger BAL volume yield than conventional bronchoscopes, with comparable cell yield and viability. Better volume yields can potentially reduce post procedure side effects such as pleuritic chest pain and cough. The risk of cross infection can be eliminated, providing reassurance to researchers and participants. Reduced maintenance requirements can be cost effective. These could potentially be used for early phase drug development studies. This trial was registered prospectively in July 2015 with the National Clinical Trials register, with the following registration number assigned: NCT 02515591 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 17%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 32%

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 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,519,001
of 9,792,785 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#689
of 816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,875
of 264,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,792,785 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 816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 264,201 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 22 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.