You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Intraoperative ventilatory strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications
|
---|---|
Published in |
Current opinion in anaesthesiology, April 2013
|
DOI | 10.1097/aco.0b013e32835e1242 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sabrine N.T. Hemmes, Ary Serpa Neto, Marcus J. Schultz |
Abstract |
It is uncertain whether patients undergoing short-lasting mechanical ventilation for surgery benefit from lung-protective intraoperative ventilatory settings including the use of lower tidal volumes, higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and/or recruitment maneuvers. We meta-analyzed trials testing the effect of lung-protective intraoperative ventilatory settings on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Japan | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 154 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 25 | 16% |
Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 12% |
Other | 16 | 10% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 10% |
Student > Master | 15 | 9% |
Other | 49 | 31% |
Unknown | 20 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 116 | 73% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
Engineering | 3 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 3% |
Unknown | 26 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,196,412
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in anaesthesiology
#286
of 1,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,456
of 212,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in anaesthesiology
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,553 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 212,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.