↓ Skip to main content

Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003668.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Balaguer A, Escribano J, Roqué I Figuls M, Rivas-Fernandez M, Balaguer, Albert, Escribano, Joaquin, Roqué i Figuls, Marta, Rivas-Fernandez, May

Abstract

A variety of body positions other than the standard supine position have been used in patients undergoing intensive care with hopes of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers of the skin, contractures or ankylosis and improving the patients' well being. In patients from different age groups undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV) it has been observed that particular positions, such as the prone position, may improve some respiratory parameters. Benefits from these positions have not been clearly defined in critically ill newborns who may require mechanical ventilation for extended periods of time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Japan 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 44 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Librarian 4 8%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Psychology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 30 October 2014.
All research outputs
#973,404
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,370
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,237
of 132,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 132,529 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 73% of its contemporaries.