↓ Skip to main content

EXTUBATE: A randomised controlled trial of nasal biphasic positive airway pressure vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure following extubation in infants less than 30 weeks' gestation: study…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
EXTUBATE: A randomised controlled trial of nasal biphasic positive airway pressure vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure following extubation in infants less than 30 weeks' gestation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-12-257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suresh Victor, Extubate Trial Group

Abstract

Respiratory distress syndrome remains a significant problem among premature infants. Mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube remains the mainstay of respiratory support but may be associated with lung injury and the development of chronic lung disease of prematurity. Efforts are needed to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in favour of less invasive forms of respiratory support and to improve rates of successful extubation.Non-invasive respiratory support has been demonstrated to be less injurious to the premature lung. Standard practice is to use nasal continuous positive airway pressure (n-CPAP) following extubation to support the baby's breathing. Many clinicians also use nasal biphasic positive airway pressure (n-BiPAP) in efforts to improve rates of successful extubation. However, there is currently no evidence that this confers any advantage over conventional nasal continuous positive airway pressure.

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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 27 30%