↓ Skip to main content

Inter-society consensus document on treatment and prevention of bronchiolitis in newborns and infants

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, October 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
454 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
Inter-society consensus document on treatment and prevention of bronchiolitis in newborns and infants
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1824-7288-40-65
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugenio Baraldi, Marcello Lanari, Paolo Manzoni, Giovanni A Rossi, Silvia Vandini, Alessandro Rimini, Costantino Romagnoli, Pierluigi Colonna, Andrea Biondi, Paolo Biban, Giampietro Chiamenti, Roberto Bernardini, Marina Picca, Marco Cappa, Giuseppe Magazzù, Carlo Catassi, Antonio Francesco Urbino, Luigi Memo, Gianpaolo Donzelli, Carlo Minetti, Francesco Paravati, Giuseppe Di Mauro, Filippo Festini, Susanna Esposito, Giovanni Corsello

Abstract

Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection and hospitalization in children less than 1 year of age worldwide. It is usually a mild disease, but some children may develop severe symptoms, requiring hospital admission and ventilatory support in the ICU. Infants with pre-existing risk factors (prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, congenital heart diseases and immunodeficiency) may be predisposed to a severe form of the disease. Clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis is manly based on medical history and physical examination (rhinorrhea, cough, crackles, wheezing and signs of respiratory distress). Etiological diagnosis, with antigen or genome detection to identify viruses involved, may have a role in reducing hospital transmission of the infection. Criteria for hospitalization include low oxygen saturation (<90-92%), moderate-to-severe respiratory distress, dehydration and presence of apnea. Children with pre-existing risk factors should be carefully assessed.To date, there is no specific treatment for viral bronchiolitis, and the mainstay of therapy is supportive care. This consists of nasal suctioning and nebulized 3% hypertonic saline, assisted feeding and hydration, humidified O2 delivery. The possible role of any pharmacological approach is still debated, and till now there is no evidence to support the use of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, chest physiotherapy, antibiotics or antivirals. Nebulized adrenaline may be sometimes useful in the emergency room. Nebulized adrenaline can be useful in the hospital setting for treatment as needed. Lacking a specific etiological treatment, prophylaxis and prevention, especially in children at high risk of severe infection, have a fundamental role. Environmental preventive measures minimize viral transmission in hospital, in the outpatient setting and at home. Pharmacological prophylaxis with palivizumab for RSV bronchiolitis is indicated in specific categories of children at risk during the epidemic period. Viral bronchiolitis, especially in the case of severe form, may correlate with an increased incidence of recurrent wheezing in pre-schooled children and with asthma at school age.The aim of this document is to provide a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of bronchiolitis, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 452 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 64 14%
Student > Master 54 12%
Student > Postgraduate 38 8%
Other 33 7%
Researcher 33 7%
Other 96 21%
Unknown 136 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 184 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 2%
Social Sciences 6 1%
Engineering 5 1%
Other 31 7%
Unknown 149 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,627,132
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#54
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,456
of 274,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 274,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.