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 |
Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009235.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rose L, Schultz MJ, Cardwell CR, Jouvet P, McAuley DF, Blackwood B, Rose, Louise, Schultz, Marcus J, Cardwell, Chris R, Jouvet, Philippe, McAuley, Danny F, Blackwood, Bronagh |
| Abstract |
Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of the mechanical support to a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 46% |
| Engineering | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#8,247,976
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,529
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,597
of 210,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#222
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 210,449 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.