↓ Skip to main content

High versus low positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 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
High versus low positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009098.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Santa Cruz, Juan Ignacio Rojas, Rolando Nervi, Roberto Heredia, Agustín Ciapponi

Abstract

Mortality in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, but this modality has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 205 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Master 22 10%
Other 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 10%
Other 52 25%
Unknown 43 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 53 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,628,553
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,791
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,951
of 210,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
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 81st 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 81% 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.