↓ Skip to main content

Role of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in the Management of Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Role of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in the Management of Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fped.2016.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliette Lucinda Hunt, Ronald A. Bronicki, Nick Anas

Abstract

To date, there have been several systematic reviews with meta-analysis that have shown no reduction in mortality with the use of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Importantly, these reports fail to make a distinction between the pediatric and adult patient. The number of adult patients in these reviews are far greater than the number of pediatric patients, which makes it difficult to interpret the data regarding the role of iNO on the pediatric population. Extrapolating data from the adult population to the pediatric population is complicated as we know that physiology and the body's response to disease can be different between adult and pediatric patients. iNO has been demonstrated to improve outcomes in term and near-term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure associated with pulmonary hypertension. Recently, Bronicki et al. published a prospective randomized control trial investigating the impact of iNO on the pediatric patient population with acute respiratory failure. In this study, a benefit of decreased duration of mechanical ventilation and an increased rate of ECMO-free survival was demonstrated in patients who were randomized to receiving iNO, suggesting that there may be benefit to the use of iNO in pediatric ARDS (PARDS) that has not been demonstrated in adults. iNO has repeatedly been shown to transiently improve oxygenation in all age groups, and yet neonates and pediatric patients have shown improvement in other outcomes that have not been seen in adults. The mechanism that explains improvement with the use of iNO in these patient populations are not well understood but does not appear to be solely a result of sustained improvement in oxygenation. There are physiologic studies that suggest alternative mechanisms for explaining the positive effects of iNO, such as platelet aggregation inhibition and reduction in systemic inflammation. Hence, the role of iNO by various mechanisms and in various age groups warrants further investigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,811,816
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,918
of 6,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,076
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.