↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in infants with upper airway obstruction: comparison of continuous and bilevel positive pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, February 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in infants with upper airway obstruction: comparison of continuous and bilevel positive pressure
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, February 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00134-005-2568-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandrine Essouri, Frédéric Nicot, Annick Clément, Erea-Noel Garabedian, Gilles Roger, Frédéric Lofaso, Brigitte Fauroux

Abstract

This study evaluated the efficacy of noninvasive continuous positive pressure (CPAP) ventilation in infants with severe upper airway obstruction and compared CPAP to bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) ventilation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 95 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 53%
Engineering 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,589,683
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,690
of 5,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,871
of 154,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 154,812 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.