↓ Skip to main content

Volume‐targeted versus pressure‐limited ventilation in the neonate

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Volume‐targeted versus pressure‐limited ventilation in the neonate
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003666.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wheeler K, Klingenberg C, McCallion N, Morley CJ, Davis PG, Wheeler, Kevin, Klingenberg, Claus, McCallion, Naomi, Morley, Colin J, Davis, Peter G

Abstract

Damage caused by lung overdistension (volutrauma) has been implicated in the development bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Modern neonatal ventilation modes can target a set tidal volume as an alternative to traditional pressure-limited ventilation using a fixed inflation pressure. Volume targeting aims to produce a more stable tidal volume in order to reduce lung damage and stabilise pCO(2)

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 133 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 21 15%
Other 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 19 14%

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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,555,726
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,667
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,164
of 144,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 144,239 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 66% of its contemporaries.