↓ Skip to main content

The ACUTE (Ambulance CPAP: Use, Treatment effect and economics) feasibility study: a pilot randomised controlled trial of prehospital CPAP for acute respiratory failure

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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 ACUTE (Ambulance CPAP: Use, Treatment effect and economics) feasibility study: a pilot randomised controlled trial of prehospital CPAP for acute respiratory failure
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0281-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon W. Fuller, Steve Goodacre, Samuel Keating, Gavin Perkins, Matthew Ward, Andy Rosser, Imogen Gunson, Joshua Miller, Mike Bradburn, Praveen Thokala, Tim Harris, Andrew Carson, Maggie Marsh, Cindy Cooper

Abstract

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common and life-threatening medical emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy and disease-specific ancillary treatments. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment that could be delivered by emergency medical services. However, it is uncertain whether this treatment could work effectively in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) ambulance services and if it represents value for money. An individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial will be conducted comparing prehospital CPAP to standard oxygen therapy for ARF. Adults presenting to ambulance service clinicians will be eligible if they have respiratory distress with peripheral oxygen saturation below British Thoracic Society (BTS) target levels, despite titrated supplemental oxygen. Enrolled patients will be allocated (1:1 simple randomisation) to prehospital CPAP (O_two system) or standard oxygen therapy using identical sealed boxes. Feasibility outcomes will include incidence of recruited eligible patients, number of erroneously recruited patients and proportion of cases adhering to allocation schedule and treatment, followed up at 30 days and with complete data collection. Effectiveness outcomes will comprise survival at 30 days (definitive trial primary end point), endotracheal intubation, admission to critical care, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) dyspnoea score, EQ-5D-5L and health care resource use at 30 days. The cost-effectiveness of CPAP, and of conducting a definitive trial, will be evaluated by updating an existing economic model. The trial aims to recruit 120 patients over 12 months from four regional ambulance hubs within the West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS). This sample size will allow estimation of feasibility outcomes with a precision of < 5%. Feasibility and effectiveness outcomes will be reported descriptively for the whole trial population, and each trial arm, together with their 95% confidence intervals. This study will determine if it is feasible, acceptable and cost-effective to undertake a full-scale trial comparing CPAP and standard oxygen treatment, delivered by ambulance service clinicians for ARF. This will inform NHS practice and prevent inappropriate prehospital CPAP adoption on the basis of limited evidence and at a potentially substantial cost. ISRCTN12048261. Registered on 30 August 2017. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12048261.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Librarian 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 31 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Engineering 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 30 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,591,181
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#299
of 1,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,570
of 327,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#19
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 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 1,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 327,745 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 38 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.