↓ Skip to main content

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008863.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agi Holland, Fiona Smith, Kay Penny, Gill McCrossan, Linda Veitch, Caroline Nicholson

Abstract

Nebulizers and metered dose inhalers (MDI) have both been adapted for delivering aerosol bronchodilation to mechanically ventilated patients, but there is incomplete knowledge as to the most effective method of delivery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 50 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 55 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 May 2019.
All research outputs
#10,386,639
of 19,240,244 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,186
of 11,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,643
of 171,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,240,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 171,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.