| Title |
Home noninvasive ventilatory support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: patient selection and perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s154718 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Hendrik Storre, Jens Callegari, Friederike Sophie Magnet, Sarah Bettina Schwarz, Marieke Leontine Duiverman, Peter Jan Wijkstra, Wolfram Windisch |
| Abstract |
Long-term or home mechanical noninvasive ventilation (Home-NIV) has become a well-established form of therapy over the last few decades for chronic hypercapnic COPD patients in European countries. However, meta-analyses and clinical guidelines do not recommend Home-NIV for COPD patients on a routine basis. In particular, there is ongoing debate about Home-NIV in chronic hypercapnic COPD regarding the overall effects, the most favorable treatment strategy, the selection of eligible patients, and the time point at which it is prescribed. The current review focuses on specific aspects of patient selection and discusses the various scientific as well as clinical-guided perspectives on Home-NIV in patients suffering from chronic hypercapnic COPD. In addition, special attention will be given to the topic of ventilator settings and interfaces. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 February 2020.
All research outputs
#14,479,843
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,213
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,744
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#43
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.