| Title |
Early extubation followed by immediate noninvasive ventilation vs. standard extubation in hypoxemic patients: a randomized clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-018-5478-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosanna Vaschetto, Federico Longhini, Paolo Persona, Carlo Ori, Giulia Stefani, Songqiao Liu, Yang Yi, Weihua Lu, Tao Yu, Xiaoming Luo, Rui Tang, Maoqin Li, Jiaqiong Li, Gianmaria Cammarota, Andrea Bruni, Eugenio Garofalo, Zhaochen Jin, Jun Yan, Ruiqiang Zheng, Jingjing Yin, Stefania Guido, Francesco Della Corte, Tiziano Fontana, Cesare Gregoretti, Andrea Cortegiani, Antonino Giarratano, Claudia Montagnini, Silvio Cavuto, Haibo Qiu, Paolo Navalesi |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 9% |
| Mexico | 5 | 5% |
| France | 4 | 4% |
| Colombia | 4 | 4% |
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Japan | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Argentina | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 44 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 15% |
| Scientists | 6 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 169 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 37 | 22% |
| Unknown | 56 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 70 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#702,148
of 25,046,311 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#652
of 5,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,970
of 448,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#14
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 448,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.