↓ Skip to main content

The use of an alternate side lying positioning strategy during inhalation therapy does not prolong nebulisation time in adults with Cystic Fibrosis: a randomised crossover trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
The use of an alternate side lying positioning strategy during inhalation therapy does not prolong nebulisation time in adults with Cystic Fibrosis: a randomised crossover trial
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0568-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth L. Dentice, Mark R. Elkins, Genevieve M. Dwyer, Peter T. P. Bye

Abstract

Inhalation of nebulised medications is performed in upright sitting to maximise lung volumes. The pattern of deposition is poor for inhaled medications in people with Cystic Fibrosis. The pattern tends to be non-uniform and typically the upper lobes receive a reduced dose compared to the rest of the lung. One strategy that has been proposed as having the potential to improve homogeneity of deposition is to adopt an alternate side lying position for the inhalation procedure. This study sought to determine whether, among adults with Cystic Fibrosis, there is any disadvantage to delivery time of nebulised medications with a strategy of alternate side lying, compared to upright sitting. A randomised crossover trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded assessors was undertaken. The participants were 24 adults with stable Cystic Fibrosis. They inhaled 4 mL of normal saline via an LC Star™ nebuliser twice within 24 h. In random order, participants sat upright throughout nebulisation, or alternated between left and right side lying at each minute during the nebulisation period. The nebuliser was stopped and weighed each minute until the residual volume was reached. The primary outcome was the time required for 3.5 mL to be delivered. The secondary outcomes were: respiratory rate; ratio of the volume delivered on right and left sides; and calculation of how long the periods in side lying can be extended without causing greater than 20% discrepancy in dose delivered in the two positions. The delivery time did not significantly differ between sitting and side lying (mean difference 0.58 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.40 to 0.24). There was no significant correlation between delivery time, lung function or subject height (all R2 < 0.4). Increasing side lying duration from 1 to 2 min did not significantly impact the dose delivered on each side. Turning each 3 min however, significantly worsened the disparity (mean ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.40). Side lying during inhalation therapy does not prolong nebulisation time. 2-min periods should provide an equal dose in the two side lying positions. Prospectively registered on 4 July 2011; ACTRN12611000672954 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 3 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Researcher 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 48 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Unspecified 1 1%
Linguistics 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 51 64%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,814,057
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,437
of 1,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,585
of 443,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#64
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. 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 443,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.