↓ Skip to main content

Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in the Early CPAP and Pulse Oximetry Trial

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
229 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.
Article details
Title
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in the Early CPAP and Pulse Oximetry Trial
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1208506
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Previous results from our trial of early treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus early surfactant treatment in infants showed no significant difference in the outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. A lower (vs. higher) target range of oxygen saturation was associated with a lower rate of severe retinopathy but higher mortality. We now report longer-term results from our prespecified hypotheses.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 4 2%
United States 3 1%
Peru 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 220 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 17%
Other 25 11%
Student > Master 21 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 8%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Other 60 26%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 64 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#987,895
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#10,063
of 38,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,507
of 346,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#102
of 340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 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 38,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 346,857 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 340 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 70% of its contemporaries.