↓ Skip to main content

Intraoperative ventilatory strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
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.
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

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.
Mendeley readers

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

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.