↓ Skip to main content

Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, October 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-10-53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiuming Liao, Trygve Sjöberg, Audrius Paskevicius, Björn Wohlfart, Stig Steen

Abstract

Optimal manual closed chest compressions are difficult to give. A mechanical compression/decompression device, named LUCAS, is programmed to give compression according to the latest international guidelines (2005) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the present study was to compare manual CPR with LUCAS-CPR.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Engineering 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,964,833
of 23,172,045 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#160
of 1,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,102
of 100,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,172,045 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,657 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 100,234 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them