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 |
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) allows patient-ventilator synchrony during pediatric noninvasive ventilation: a crossover physiological study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0770-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laurence Ducharme-Crevier, Jennifer Beck, Sandrine Essouri, Philippe Jouvet, Guillaume Emeriaud |
| Abstract |
The need for intubation after a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure is frequent in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). One reason is patient-ventilator asynchrony during NIV. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a mode of ventilation controlled by the patient's neural respiratory drive. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and tolerance of NIV-NAVA in children and to evaluate its impact on synchrony and respiratory effort. This prospective, physiologic, crossover study included 13 patients requiring NIV in the PICU of Sainte-Justine's Hospital from October 2011 to May 2013. Patients were successively ventilated in conventional NIV as prescribed by the physician in charge (30 minutes), in NIV-NAVA (60 minutes), and again in conventional NIV (30 minutes). Electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) and airway pressure were simultaneously recorded to assess patient-ventilator synchrony. NIV-NAVA was feasible and well tolerated in all patients. One patient asked to stop the study because of anxiety related to the leak-free facial mask. Inspiratory trigger dys-synchrony and cycling-off dys-synchrony were significantly shorter in NIV-NAVA versus initial and final conventional NIV periods (both P <0.05). Wasted efforts were also decreased in NIV-NAVA (all values expressed as median and interquartile values) (0 (0 to 0) versus 12% (4 to 20) and 6% (2 to 22), respectively; P <0.01). As a whole, total time spent in asynchrony was reduced to 8% (6 to 10) in NIV-NAVA, versus 27% (19 to 56) and 32% (21 to 38) in conventional NIV before and after NIV-NAVA, respectively (P =0.05). NIV-NAVA is feasible and well tolerated in PICU patients and allows improved patient-ventilator synchronization. Larger controlled studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical impact of these findings. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02163382 . Registered 9 June 2014. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 18% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 18% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#5,290,274
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,418
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,924
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#288
of 466 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 79th 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 395,408 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.