| Title |
A comparison of continuous and bi-level positive airway pressure non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc4861 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kwok M Ho, Karen Wong |
| Abstract |
We conducted the present study to investigate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) noninvasive ventilation in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 5 | 50% |
| Australia | 2 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 38 | 29% |
| Unknown | 14 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 69% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 14% |
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 02 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,354,364
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,099
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,639
of 85,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. 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 85,447 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.