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 |
Current evidence for the effectiveness of heated and humidified high flow nasal cannula supportive therapy in adult patients with respiratory failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1263-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oriol Roca, Gonzalo Hernández, Salvador Díaz-Lobato, José M. Carratalá, Rosa M. Gutiérrez, Joan R. Masclans, for the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group of High Flow Supportive Therapy in Adults (HiSpaFlow) |
| Abstract |
High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) supportive therapy has emerged as a safe, useful therapy in patients with respiratory failure, improving oxygenation and comfort. Recently several clinical trials have analyzed the effectiveness of HFNC therapy in different clinical situations and have reported promising results. Here we review the current knowledge about HFNC therapy, from its mechanisms of action to its effects on outcomes in different clinical situations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 19% |
| United States | 4 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Mexico | 2 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 288 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Researcher | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 33 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 66 | 23% |
| Unknown | 54 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 166 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 3% |
| Unknown | 68 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,510,789
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,336
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,886
of 312,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#50
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 312,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 54% of its contemporaries.