| Title |
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and beyond: the need to improve real-time feedback and physiologic monitoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1371-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steve Lin, Damon C. Scales |
| Abstract |
High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been shown to improve survival outcomes after cardiac arrest. The current standard in studies evaluating CPR quality is to measure CPR process measures-for example, chest compression rate, depth, and fraction. Published studies evaluating CPR feedback devices have yielded mixed results. Newer approaches that seek to optimize CPR by measuring physiological endpoints during the resuscitation may lead to individualized patient care and improved patient outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 13% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 39% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,250,551
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,971
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,623
of 367,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#60
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 367,033 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.