↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation for people with neuromuscular disorders

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 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
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation for people with neuromuscular disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010044.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenda Morrow, Marco Zampoli, Helena van Aswegen, Andrew Argent

Abstract

People with neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) may have weak respiratory (breathing) muscles which makes it difficult for them to effectively cough and clear mucus from the lungs. This places them at risk of recurrent chest infections and chronic lung disease. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is one of a number of techniques available to improve cough efficacy and mucus clearance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 170 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 18%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Other 14 8%
Other 47 27%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 21%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 30 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,323,527
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,780
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,564
of 237,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 237,633 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 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.