The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
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 |
Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation as an Airway Clearance Technique during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Life Support in an Infant with Pertussis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2017.00099 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Conrad Krawiec, Ken Ballinger, E. Scott Halstead |
| Abstract |
Initiation of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is often followed by complete opacification of pulmonary parenchyma and volume loss. The optimal mechanical ventilator management and lung recruitment strategy of a pediatric patient requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not known. We present a case of a 4-week old infant who developed a severe pertussis infection requiring ECLS. The severity of his illness and pertussis infection-associated intraluminal bronchiole obstruction made medical management challenging. In addition to lung protection ventilator strategies and bronchoscopy, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation was initiated to facilitate lung recruitment. This was associated with precipitous incremental improvement in lung compliance and eventual liberation from venoarterial ECLS. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,701,376
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#4,314
of 6,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,285
of 310,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#87
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,281 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 310,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.