| Title |
Tracheal suctioning without disconnection in intubated ventilated neonates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003065.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacqueline E Taylor, Glenda Hawley, Vicki Flenady, Paul G Woodgate |
| Abstract |
Assisted mechanical ventilation is a necessity in the neonatal population for a variety of respiratory and surgical conditions. However, there are a number of potential hazards associated with this life saving intervention. New suctioning techniques have been introduced into clinical practice which aim to prevent or reduce these untoward effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 24% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 14% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 July 2012.
All research outputs
#2,996,440
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,601
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,877
of 247,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 207 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 88th 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 247,349 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 207 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 66% of its contemporaries.