↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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

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 %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Unspecified 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 62%
Unspecified 14 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 10%

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
#1,485,514
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,725
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,153
of 144,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 144,719 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 100 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 56% of its contemporaries.