| Title |
Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005351.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Berbenetz, Yongjun Wang, James Brown, Charlotte Godfrey, Mahmood Ahmad, Flávia MR Vital, Pier Lambiase, Amitava Banerjee, Ameet Bakhai, Matthew Chong |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 8 | 32% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 500 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 497 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 10% |
| Researcher | 46 | 9% |
| Other | 40 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 38 | 8% |
| Other | 84 | 17% |
| Unknown | 183 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 186 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 54 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Engineering | 7 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 35 | 7% |
| Unknown | 203 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,389,044
of 26,102,714 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,800
of 13,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,091
of 368,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,102,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 368,963 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 71% of its contemporaries.