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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Efficacy of a Low-Cost Bubble CPAP System in Treatment of Respiratory Distress in a Neonatal Ward in Malawi
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2014
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0086327 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kondwani Kawaza, Heather E. Machen, Jocelyn Brown, Zondiwe Mwanza, Suzanne Iniguez, Al Gest, E. O'Brian Smith, Maria Oden, Rebecca R. Richards-Kortum, Elizabeth Molyneux |
Abstract |
Respiratory failure is a leading cause of neonatal mortality in the developing world. Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) is a safe, effective intervention for infants with respiratory distress and is widely used in developed countries. Because of its high cost, bCPAP is not widely utilized in low-resource settings. We evaluated the performance of a new bCPAP system to treat severe respiratory distress in a low resource setting, comparing it to nasal oxygen therapy, the current standard of care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Uruguay | 1 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
United States | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 259 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 37 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 34 | 13% |
Researcher | 31 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 9% |
Other | 20 | 8% |
Other | 55 | 21% |
Unknown | 61 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 111 | 42% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 13% |
Engineering | 12 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
Other | 25 | 10% |
Unknown | 63 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 125. 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 14 May 2020.
All research outputs
#340,635
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#4,829
of 224,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,181
of 325,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#144
of 5,639 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 325,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,639 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.