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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of reintubation in adult patients after extubation? A meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12890-017-0491-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yue-Nan Ni, Jian Luo, He Yu, Dan Liu, Bin-Miao Liang, Rong Yao, Zong-An Liang |
| Abstract |
The effects of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on adult patients after extubation remain controversial. We aimed to further determine the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT). The Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) as well as the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) Web of Science were searched for all the controlled study comparing HFNC with NIPPV and COT in adult patients after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation and the secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and length of ICU stay (ICU LOS). Eight trials with a total of 2936 patients were pooled in our final studies. No significant heterogeneity was found in outcome measures. Compared with COT, HFNC was associated with lower rate of reintubation (Z = 2.97, P = 0.003), and the same result was found in the comparison between HFNC and NIPPV (Z = 0.87, P = 0.38). As for the ICU mortality and ICU LOS, we did not find any advantage of HFNC over COT or NIPPV. In patients after extubation, HFNC is a reliable alternative of NIPPV to reduce rate of reintubation compared with COT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 143 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 47 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 14% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,108,426
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#427
of 1,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,633
of 431,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#20
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 431,651 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.