↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic methylxanthines for endotracheal extubation in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Prophylactic methylxanthines for endotracheal extubation in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000139.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Henderson‐Smart, Peter G Davis

Abstract

Weaning and extubating preterm infants on intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) for respiratory failure may be difficult. A significant contributing factor is thought to be the relatively poor respiratory drive and tendency to develop hypercarbia and apnoea, particularly in very preterm infants. Methylxanthine treatment started before extubation might stimulate breathing and increase the chances of successful weaning from IPPV.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 177 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 54 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 60 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 January 2011.
All research outputs
#3,815,396
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,323
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,041
of 191,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 191,497 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 65% of its contemporaries.