Title |
High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2019
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00134-019-05590-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
B. Rochwerg, D. Granton, D. X. Wang, Y. Helviz, S. Einav, J. P. Frat, A. Mekontso-Dessap, A. Schreiber, E. Azoulay, A. Mercat, A. Demoule, V. Lemiale, A. Pesenti, E. D. Riviello, T. Mauri, J. Mancebo, L. Brochard, K. Burns |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 204 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 20 | 10% |
Saudi Arabia | 15 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 14 | 7% |
United States | 8 | 4% |
Colombia | 7 | 3% |
Mexico | 7 | 3% |
Spain | 6 | 3% |
Argentina | 5 | 2% |
India | 4 | 2% |
Other | 39 | 19% |
Unknown | 79 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 146 | 72% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 31 | 15% |
Scientists | 26 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 421 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 47 | 11% |
Other | 40 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 37 | 9% |
Researcher | 35 | 8% |
Student > Master | 32 | 8% |
Other | 73 | 17% |
Unknown | 157 | 37% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 171 | 41% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 10% |
Engineering | 11 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 1% |
Other | 22 | 5% |
Unknown | 162 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 192. 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 17 July 2021.
All research outputs
#211,304
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#152
of 5,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,516
of 365,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#5
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 365,634 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.