| Title |
Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005351.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Flávia MR Vital, Magdaline T Ladeira, Álvaro N Atallah |
| Abstract |
This is an update of a systematic review previously published in 2008 about non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). NPPV has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 States | 16 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Italy | 3 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Panama | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 17% |
| Scientists | 5 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 329 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 51 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 12% |
| Researcher | 40 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 80 | 24% |
| Unknown | 60 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 203 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Psychology | 4 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 18 | 5% |
| Unknown | 74 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 18 April 2022.
All research outputs
#715,390
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,323
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,183
of 207,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 207,975 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 97% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.