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 |
The use of tracheostomy speaking valves in mechanically ventilated patients results in improved communication and does not prolong ventilation time in cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Critical Care, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.12.017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna-Liisa Sutt, Petrea Cornwell, Daniel Mullany, Toni Kinneally, John F. Fraser |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of in-line tracheostomy speaking valves (SVs) on duration of mechanical ventilation and time to verbal communication in patients requiring tracheostomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation in a predominantly cardiothoracic intensive care unit (ICU). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 27% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
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 22 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,301,033
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Critical Care
#585
of 2,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,016
of 358,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Critical Care
#8
of 49 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 2,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 358,883 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.