| Title |
Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd015130 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raj Prakash, Antonio G De Paoli, Peter G Davis, Sam J Oddie, William McGuire |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 2 | 9% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Kyrgyzstan | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 59% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 28 | 68% |
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 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,768,336
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,440
of 13,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,747
of 423,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 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 13,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 423,750 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 133 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 51% of its contemporaries.