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 |
The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1097-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Virginie Lemiale, Djamel Mokart, Julien Mayaux, Jérôme Lambert, Antoine Rabbat, Alexandre Demoule, Elie Azoulay |
| Abstract |
In immunocompromised patients, acute respiratory failure (ARF) is associated with high mortality, particularly when invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is required. In patients with severe hypoxemia, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy has been used as an alternative to delivery of oxygen via a Venturi mask. Our objective in the present study was to compare HFNO and Venturi mask oxygen in immunocompromised patients with ARF. We conducted a multicenter, parallel-group randomized controlled trial in four intensive care units. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic ARF and immunosuppression, defined as at least one of the following: solid or hematological malignancy, steroid or other immunosuppressant drug therapy, and HIV infection. Exclusion criteria were hypercapnia, previous IMV, and immediate need for IMV or noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Patients were randomized to 2 h of HFNO or Venturi mask oxygen. The primary endpoint was a need for IMV or NIV during the 2-h oxygen therapy period. Secondary endpoints were comfort, dyspnea, and thirst, as assessed hourly using a 0-10 visual analogue scale. We randomized 100 consecutive patients, including 84 with malignancies, to HFNO (n = 52) or Venturi mask oxygen (n = 48). During the 2-h study treatment period, 12 patients required IMV or NIV, and we found no significant difference between the two groups (15 % with HFNO and 8 % with the Venturi mask, P = 0.36). None of the secondary endpoints differed significantly between the two groups. In immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF, a 2-h trial with HFNO improved neither mechanical ventilatory assistance nor patient comfort compared with oxygen delivered via a Venturi mask. However, the study was underpowered because of the low event rate and the one-sided hypothesis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02424773 . Registered 20 April 2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 3 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 2 | 9% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 17% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 23% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 53 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,716,590
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,354
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,450
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#188
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 395,397 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 89% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.