↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High-flow nasal cannula therapy for infants with bronchiolitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
Title
High-flow nasal cannula therapy for infants with bronchiolitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009609.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean Beggs, Zee Hame Wong, Sheena Kaul, Kathryn J Ogden, Julia AE Walters

Abstract

Bronchiolitis is a common lower respiratory tract illness, usually of viral aetiology, affecting infants younger than 24 months of age and is a frequent cause of hospitalisation. It causes airway inflammation, mucus production and mucous plugging, resulting in airway obstruction. Effective pharmacotherapy is lacking and bronchiolitis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.Conventional treatment consists of supportive therapy in the form of fluids, supplemental oxygen and respiratory support. Traditionally oxygen delivery is as a dry gas at 100% concentration via low-flow nasal prongs. However, the use of heated, humidified, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy enables delivery of higher inspired gas flows of an air/oxygen blend, up to 12 L/min in infants and 30 L/min in children. Its use provides some level of continuous positive airway pressure to improve ventilation in a minimally invasive manner. This may reduce the need for invasive respiratory support thus potentially lowering costs, with clinical advantages and fewer adverse effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 201 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Other 29 14%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Other 54 26%
Unknown 27 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 118 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 38 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#710,416
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,806
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,357
of 263,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 263,035 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.