↓ Skip to main content

Continuous negative extrathoracic pressure or continuous positive airway pressure compared to conventional ventilation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
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.
Title
Continuous negative extrathoracic pressure or continuous positive airway pressure compared to conventional ventilation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003699.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Arne Ohlsson, Jyotsna P Shah

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 10 5%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 55 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,471,255
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,375
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,458
of 228,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#159
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 228,133 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.