↓ Skip to main content

Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
11 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005351.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vital FM, Ladeira MT, Atallah AN

Abstract

This is an update of a systematic review previously published in 2008 about non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). NPPV has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 77%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 2 5%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#283,218
of 7,695,823 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,256
of 8,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,369
of 121,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,695,823 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 121,675 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.