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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: does patient–ventilator synchrony matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0670-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefano Nava, Lara Pisani |
| Abstract |
Patient-ventilator interaction represents an important clinical challenge during non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Doorduin and colleagues' study shows that non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) improves patient-ventilator interaction compared with pressure support ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is no doubt nowadays that NAVA is the most effective mode of improving the synchrony between patient and machine, but the key question for the clinicians is whether or not this will make a difference to the patient's outcome. The results of the study still do not clarify this issue because of the very low clinically important dyssynchrony, like wasted efforts, in the population studied. Air leaks play an important role in determining patient-ventilator interaction and therefore NIV success or failure. Apart from the use of a dedicated NIV ventilator or specific modes of ventilation like NAVA, the clinicians should be aware that the choice of interface, the humidification system and the appropriate sedation are key factors in improving patient-ventilator synchrony. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Design | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,381
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,938
of 369,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#119
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 369,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.