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 |
Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008863.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Agi Holland, Fiona Smith, Kay Penny, Gill McCrossan, Linda Veitch, Caroline Nicholson |
| Abstract |
Nebulizers and metered dose inhalers (MDI) have both been adapted for delivering aerosol bronchodilation to mechanically ventilated patients, but there is incomplete knowledge as to the most effective method of delivery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 43% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Peru | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 16% |
| Unknown | 73 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 78 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 April 2022.
All research outputs
#5,146,574
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,073
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,933
of 210,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 210,295 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.