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 |
Development of a Clinical Pathway and Technical Aspects of Upper Airway Stimulation Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2017.00523 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olivier M. Vanderveken, Jolien Beyers, Sara Op de Beeck, Marijke Dieltjens, Marc Willemen, Johan A. Verbraecken, Wilfried A. De Backer, Paul H. Van de Heyning |
| Abstract |
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disease with high morbidity and related mortality. Narrowing and collapse of the pharyngeal airway during sleep characterize the disease, resulting in a decrease (hypopnea) or a complete cessation (apnea) of oronasal airflow. Upper airway stimulation (UAS), using electrical neurostimulation of the hypoglossal nerve (n. XII) synchronized with ventilation, is a novel, evolving treatment option. UAS was found to be an effective treatment in CPAP-intolerant patients. The treatment success is partly due to the strict selection of the patients, based on previous findings. Furthermore, post-operative follow-up is needed in order to maintain or improve treatment outcome. Therefore, a clinical pathway, which provides structure and standardization, is crucial. In this paper, the aim is to discuss the technical aspects of UAS therapy and to describe a clinical pathway to organize the care process of UAS for OSA in a structured and standardized way. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,066
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,425
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#125
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.