The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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.
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 |
Long-term Non-Invasive Ventilation in Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2018.00013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Prabhjot K. Bedi, Maria Luisa Castro-Codesal, Robin Featherstone, Mohammed M. AlBalawi, Bashar Alkhaledi, Anita L. Kozyrskyj, Carlos Flores-Mir, Joanna E. MacLean |
| Abstract |
The use of long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to treat sleep and breathing disorders in children has increased substantially in the last decade; however, less data exist about its use in infants. Given that infants have distinct sleep and breathing patterns when compared to older children, the outcomes of infants on long-term NIV may differ as well. The aim of this study is to systematically review the use and outcomes of long-term NIV in infants. Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (via EbscoHOST), PubMed, and Wiley Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 1990 to July 2017. Studies on infants using long-term NIV outside of an acute care setting were included. Data were extracted on study design, population characteristics, and NIV outcomes. A total of 327 studies were full-text reviewed, with final inclusion of 60. Studies were distributed across airway (40%), neuromuscular (28%), central nervous system (10%), cardio-respiratory (2%), and multiple (20%) disease categories. Of the 18 airway studies reporting on NIV outcomes, 13 (72%) reported improvements in respiratory parameters. Of the 12 neuromuscular studies exclusively on spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1), six (50%) reported decreased hospitalizations and nine (75%) reported on mortality outcomes. Risk of bias was moderate to serious, and quality of the evidence was low to very low for all studies. Most studies had an observational design with no control group, limiting the potential for a meta-analysis. The outcomes reported in studies differed by the disease category being studied. Studies on airway conditions showed improvements in respiratory parameters for infants using NIV. Studies on neuromuscular disorder, which were almost exclusively on SMA1, reported decreased hospitalizations and prolonged survival. Overall, it appears that NIV is an effective long-term therapy for infants. However, the high risk of bias and low quality of the available evidence limited strong conclusions. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,926,130
of 26,505,350 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#886
of 8,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,217
of 461,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#28
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,505,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 461,110 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.