| Title |
High-flow nasal cannula: recommendations for daily practice in pediatrics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-014-0029-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christophe Milési, Mathilde Boubal, Aurélien Jacquot, Julien Baleine, Sabine Durand, Marti Pons Odena, Gilles Cambonie |
| Abstract |
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively new device for respiratory support. In pediatrics, HFNC use continues to increase as the system is easily set up and is well tolerated by patients. The use of nasal cannula adapted to the infant's nares size to deliver heated and humidified gas at high flow rates has been associated with improvements in washout of nasopharyngeal dead space, lung mucociliary clearance, and oxygen delivery compared with other oxygen delivery systems. HFNC may also create positive pharyngeal pressure to reduce the work of breathing, which positions the device midway between classical oxygen delivery systems, like the high-concentration face mask and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) generators. Currently, most of the studies in the pediatric literature suggest the benefits of HFNC therapy only for moderately severe acute viral bronchiolitis. But, the experience with this device in neonatology and adult intensive care may broaden the pediatric indications to include weaning from invasive ventilation and acute asthma. As for any form of respiratory support, HFNC initiation in patients requires close monitoring, whether it be for pre- or inter-hospital transport or in the emergency department or the pediatric intensive care unit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 349 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 55 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 37 | 10% |
| Researcher | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 8% |
| Other | 87 | 24% |
| Unknown | 70 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 204 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 5% |
| Unknown | 87 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,119,651
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#412
of 1,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,237
of 265,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 265,525 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.