↓ Skip to main content

High flow nasal cannula in children: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 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
High flow nasal cannula in children: a literature review
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0278-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingvild Bruun Mikalsen, Peter Davis, Knut Øymar

Abstract

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively new non-invasive ventilation therapy that seems to be well tolerated in children. Recently a marked increase in the use of HFNC has been seen both in paediatric and adult care settings. The aim of this study was to review the current knowledge of HFNC regarding mechanisms of action, safety, clinical effects and tolerance in children beyond the newborn period.We performed a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane up to 12th of May 2016. Twenty-six clinical studies including children on HFNC beyond the newborn period with various respiratory diseases hospitalised in an emergency department, paediatric intensive care unit or general ward were included. Five of these studies were interventional studies and 21 were observational studies. Thirteen studies included only children with bronchiolitis, while the other studies included children with various respiratory conditions. Studies including infants hospitalised in a neonatal ward, or adults over 18 years of age, as well as expert reviews, were not systematically evaluated, but discussed if appropriate.The available studies suggest that HFNC is a relatively safe, well-tolerated and feasible method for delivering oxygen to children with few adverse events having been reported. Different mechanisms including washout of nasopharyngeal dead space, increased pulmonary compliance and some degree of distending airway pressure may be responsible for the effect. A positive clinical effect on various respiratory parameters has been observed and studies suggest that HFNC may reduce the work of breathing. Studies including children beyond the newborn period have found that HFNC may reduce the need of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and invasive ventilation, but these studies are observational and have a low level of evidence. There are no international guidelines regarding flow rates and the optimal maximal flow for HFNC is not known, but few studies have used a flow rate higher than 10 L/min for infants.Until more evidence from randomized studies is available, HFNC may be used as a supplementary form of respiratory support in children, but with a critical approach regarding effect and safety, particularly when operated outside of a paediatric intensive care unit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 299 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 47 16%
Student > Postgraduate 35 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Master 33 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Other 76 25%
Unknown 46 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 177 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 13%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 <1%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 59 20%

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 19 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,167,046
of 21,376,549 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#225
of 1,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,984
of 273,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,376,549 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 1,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 273,251 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them