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 |
End-expiratory lung volume recovers more slowly after closed endotracheal suctioning than after open suctioning: A randomized crossover study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Critical Care, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.08.019 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda Corley, Amy J. Spooner, Adrian G. Barnett, Lawrence R. Caruana, Naomi E. Hammond, John F. Fraser |
| Abstract |
Endotracheal suctioning causes significant lung derecruitment. Closed suction (CS) minimizes lung volume loss during suction, and therefore, volumes are presumed to recover more quickly postsuctioning. Conflicting evidence exists regarding this. We examined the effects of open suction (OS) and CS on lung volume loss during suctioning, and recovery of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) up to 30 minutes postsuction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Australia | 2 | 22% |
| Brazil | 2 | 22% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 22% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,529,257
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Critical Care
#814
of 2,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,417
of 202,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Critical Care
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 202,161 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.