↓ Skip to main content

Early high flow nasal cannula therapy in bronchiolitis, a prospective randomised control trial (protocol): A Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study (PARIS)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 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
Early high flow nasal cannula therapy in bronchiolitis, a prospective randomised control trial (protocol): A Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study (PARIS)
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12887-015-0501-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna Franklin, Stuart Dalziel, Luregn J. Schlapbach, Franz E. Babl, Ed Oakley, Simon S. Craig, Jeremy S. Furyk, Jocelyn Neutze, Kam Sinn, Jennifer A. Whitty, Kristen Gibbons, John Fraser, Andreas Schibler, on behalf of PARIS and PREDICT

Abstract

Bronchiolitis imposes the largest health care burden on non-elective paediatric hospital admissions worldwide, with up to 15 % of cases requiring admission to intensive care. A number of previous studies have failed to show benefit of pharmaceutical treatment in respect to length of stay, reduction in PICU admission rates or intubation frequency. The early use of non-invasive respiratory support devices in less intensive scenarios to facilitate earlier respiratory support may have an impact on outcome by avoiding progression of the disease process. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) therapy has emerged as a new method to provide humidified air flow to deliver a non-invasive form of positive pressure support with titratable oxygen fraction. There is a lack of high-grade evidence on use of HFNC therapy in bronchiolitis. Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing standard treatment (standard subnasal oxygen) and High Flow Nasal Cannula therapy in infants with bronchiolitis admitted to 17 hospitals emergency departments and wards in Australia and New Zealand, including 12 non-tertiary regional/metropolitan and 5 tertiary centres. The primary outcome is treatment failure; defined as meeting three out of four pre-specified failure criteria requiring escalation of treatment or higher level of care; i) heart rate remains unchanged or increased compared to admission/enrolment observations, ii) respiratory rate remains unchanged or increased compared to admission/enrolment observations, iii) oxygen requirement in HFNC therapy arm exceeds FiO2 ≥ 40 % to maintain SpO2 ≥ 92 % (or ≥94 %) or oxygen requirement in standard subnasal oxygen therapy arm exceeds >2L/min to maintain SpO2 ≥ 92 % (or ≥94 %), and iv) hospital internal Early Warning Tool calls for medical review and escalation of care. Secondary outcomes include transfer to tertiary institution, admission to intensive care, length of stay, length of oxygen treatment, need for non-invasive/invasive ventilation, intubation, adverse events, and cost. This large multicenter randomised trial will allow the definitive assessment of the efficacy of HFNC therapy as compared to standard subnasal oxygen in the treatment of bronchiolitis. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000388718 (registered on 10 April 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 259 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Master 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Other 23 9%
Student > Postgraduate 22 8%
Other 65 25%
Unknown 68 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 126 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 79 30%
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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,688,569
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#2,093
of 3,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,895
of 282,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#44
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 282,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.