↓ 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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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)

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Researcher 19 13%
Other 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 29 19%
Attention Score in Context

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
#3,530,428
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,010
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,123
of 100,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 100,970 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 54% of its contemporaries.