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 |
Permissive hypoxaemia versus normoxaemia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009931.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward T Gilbert‐Kawai, Kay Mitchell, Daniel Martin, John Carlisle, Michael PW Grocott |
| Abstract |
Permissive hypoxaemia describes a concept in which a lower level of arterial oxygenation (PaO2) than usual is accepted to avoid the detrimental effects of high fractional inspired oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation. Currently however, no specific threshold is known that defines permissive hypoxaemia, and its use in adults remains formally untested. The importance of this systematic review is thus to determine whether any substantial evidence is available to support the notion that permissive hypoxaemia may improve clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| Germany | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 195 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 22% |
| Unknown | 64 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 70 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,428,385
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,927
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,718
of 242,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 242,070 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 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 56% of its contemporaries.