↓ Skip to main content

Air versus oxygen for resuscitation of infants at birth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Air versus oxygen for resuscitation of infants at birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002273.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton Tan, Andreas A Schulze, Colm PF O'Donnell, Peter G Davis

Abstract

100% oxygen is the commonly recommended gas for the resuscitation of infants at birth. There is growing evidence from both animal and human studies that room air is as effective as 100% oxygen and that 100% oxygen may have adverse effects on breathing physiology and cerebral circulation. There is also the theoretical risk of tissue damage due to free oxygen radicals when 100% oxygen is given. The use of room air has, therefore, been suggested as a safer and possibly more effective alternative.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 93 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Other 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 27 28%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Unspecified 8 8%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 9 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,499,448
of 12,439,600 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,968
of 8,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,346
of 145,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,439,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 145,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.