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 |
Protocol: inspiratory muscle training for promoting recovery and outcomes in ventilated patients (IMPROVe): a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000813 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernie M Bissett, I Anne Leditschke, Jennifer D Paratz, Robert J Boots |
| Abstract |
Inspiratory muscle weakness is a known consequence of mechanical ventilation and a potential contributor to difficulty in weaning from ventilatory support. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) reduces the weaning period and increases the likelihood of successful weaning in some patients. However, it is not known how this training affects the residual inspiratory muscle fatigability following successful weaning nor patients' quality of life or functional outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 168 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 15% |
| Researcher | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 37 | 22% |
| Unknown | 36 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Unknown | 43 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,373,276
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#10,389
of 25,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,235
of 168,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#63
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 168,389 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.