↓ Skip to main content

Improving Long-Term Outcomes After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: From Observational Follow-Up Programs Toward Risk Stratification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Improving Long-Term Outcomes After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: From Observational Follow-Up Programs Toward Risk Stratification
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00177
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanneke IJsselstijn, Maayke Hunfeld, Raisa M. Schiller, Robert J. Houmes, Aparna Hoskote, Dick Tibboel, Arno F. J. van Heijst

Abstract

Since the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), more neonates and children with cardiorespiratory failure survive. Interest has therefore shifted from reduction of mortality toward evaluation of long-term outcomes and prevention of morbidity. This review addresses the changes in ECMO population and the ECMO-treatment that may affect long-term outcomes, the diagnostic modalities to evaluate neurological morbidities and their contributions to prognostication of long-term outcomes. Most follow-up data have only become available from observational follow-up programs in neonatal ECMO-survivors. The main topics are discussed in this review. Recommendations for long-term follow up depend on the presence of neurological comorbidity, the nature and extent of the underlying disease, and the indication for ECMO. Follow up should preferably be offered as standard of care, and in an interdisciplinary, structured and standardized way. This permits evaluation of outcome data and effect of interventions. We propose a standardized approach and recommend that multiple domains should be evaluated during long-term follow up of neonates and children who needed extracorporeal life support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Other 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,523,552
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#418
of 7,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,680
of 345,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#10
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 345,691 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.