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 |
A framework for understanding shared substrates of airway protection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-775720140132 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Shevon TROCHE, Alexandra Essman BRANDIMORE, Juliana GODOY, Karen Wheeler HEGLAND |
| Abstract |
Deficits of airway protection can have deleterious effects to health and quality of life. Effective airway protection requires a continuum of behaviors including swallowing and cough. Swallowing prevents material from entering the airway and coughing ejects endogenous material from the airway. There is significant overlap between the control mechanisms for swallowing and cough. In this review we will present the existing literature to support a novel framework for understanding shared substrates of airway protection. This framework was originally adapted from Eccles' model of cough (2009) by Hegland, et al. (2012). It will serve to provide a basis from which to develop future studies and test specific hypotheses that advance our field and ultimately improve outcomes for people with airway protective deficits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 Kingdom | 6 | 33% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 61% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,977,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#22
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,144
of 319,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 319,271 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.