| Title |
Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003668.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Balaguer A, Escribano J, Roqué I Figuls M, Rivas-Fernandez M, Balaguer, Albert, Escribano, Joaquin, Roqué i Figuls, Marta, Rivas-Fernandez, May |
| Abstract |
A variety of body positions other than the standard supine position have been used in patients undergoing intensive care with hopes of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers of the skin, contractures or ankylosis and improving the patients' well being. In patients from different age groups undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV) it has been observed that particular positions, such as the prone position, may improve some respiratory parameters. Benefits from these positions have not been clearly defined in critically ill newborns who may require mechanical ventilation for extended periods of time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 30 October 2014.
All research outputs
#2,326,178
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,916
of 12,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,231
of 197,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 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 12,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. 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 197,825 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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 62% of its contemporaries.