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 |
Early Goal-Directed Sedation Versus Standard Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Care Medicine, August 2013
|
DOI | 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a437d |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yahya Shehabi, Rinaldo Bellomo, Michael C. Reade, Michael Bailey, Frances Bass, Belinda Howe, Colin McArthur, Lynne Murray, Ian M. Seppelt, Steve Webb, Leonie Weisbrodt |
Abstract |
To assess the feasibility and safety of delivering early goal-directed sedation compared with standard sedation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Jordan | 1 | 13% |
Canada | 1 | 13% |
United States | 1 | 13% |
South Africa | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 3 | 1% |
United States | 3 | 1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Ireland | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Colombia | 1 | <1% |
Japan | 1 | <1% |
Other | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 236 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 31 | 12% |
Other | 30 | 12% |
Student > Master | 30 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 8% |
Other | 74 | 30% |
Unknown | 42 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 146 | 58% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 9% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
Psychology | 4 | 2% |
Other | 16 | 6% |
Unknown | 51 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#4,254,977
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#2,787
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,666
of 210,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#45
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 210,078 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 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 65% of its contemporaries.