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 |
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure undergoing flexible bronchoscopy - a prospective randomised trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0712-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcel Simon, Stephan Braune, Daniel Frings, Ann-Kathrin Wiontzek, Hans Klose, Stefan Kluge |
| Abstract |
IntroductionCritically ill patients with respiratory failure undergoing bronchoscopy have an increased risk of hypoxaemia-related complications. Previous studies have shown that in awake, hypoxaemic patients non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is helpful in preventing gas exchange deterioration during bronchoscopy. An alternative and increasingly used means of oxygen delivery is its application via high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). This study was conducted to compare HFNC with NIV in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure undergoing flexible bronchoscopy.MethodsProspective randomised trial randomising 40 critically ill patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure to receive either NIV or HFNC during bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit.ResultsAfter the initiation of NIV and HFNC, oxygen levels were significantly higher in the NIV group compared to the HFNC group. Two patients were unable to proceed to bronchoscopy after the institution of HFNC due to progressive hypoxaemia. During bronchoscopy, one patient on HFNC deteriorated due to intravenous sedation requiring non-invasive ventilatory support. Bronchoscopy was well tolerated in all other patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding heart rate, mean arterial pressure and respiratory rate. 3 patients in the NIV group and 1 patient in the HFNC group were intubated within 24 hours after the end of bronchoscopy (p¿=¿0.29).ConclusionsThe application of NIV was superior to HFNC with regard to oxygenation before, during and after bronchoscopy in patients with moderate to severe hypoxaemia. In patients with stable oxygenation under HFNC, subsequent bronchoscopy was well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870765 (registered 30 May 2013). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 212 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 33 | 15% |
| Researcher | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 52 | 24% |
| Unknown | 48 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 123 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,509
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,939
of 359,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#55
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 359,702 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 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 52% of its contemporaries.