| Title |
The accuracy of respiratory rate assessment by doctors in a London teaching hospital: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-014-9621-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keir E. J. Philip, Emma Pack, Valentina Cambiano, Hannah Rollmann, Simon Weil, James O’Beirne |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 18% |
| Researcher | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 21% |
| Engineering | 18 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#13,903,378
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#369
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,345
of 255,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 255,356 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.