| Title |
Pressure modification or humidification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003531.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barry Kennedy, Toby J Lasserson, Dariusz R Wozniak, Ian Smith |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 232 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 17% |
| Researcher | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 19% |
| Unknown | 77 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 11% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 14% |
| Unknown | 89 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,586,971
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,211
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,304
of 476,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 476,373 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.