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 |
The practice of tracheostomy decannulation—a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-017-0234-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ratender Kumar Singh, Sai Saran, Arvind K. Baronia |
| Abstract |
Decannulation is an essential step towards liberating tracheostomized patients from mechanical ventilation. However, despite its perceived importance, there is no universally accepted protocol for this vital transition. Presence of an intact sensorium coordinated swallowing and protective coughing are often the minimum requirements for a successful decannulation. Objective criteria for each of these may help better the clinical judgement of decannulation. In this systematic review on decannulation, we focus attention to this important aspect of tracheostomy care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 17% |
| Spain | 5 | 12% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 7% |
| Mexico | 3 | 7% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 5% |
| Colombia | 2 | 5% |
| Thailand | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 204 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 10% |
| Other | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 16% |
| Unknown | 68 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 79 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,376,304
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#62
of 580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,268
of 330,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 330,209 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 92% of its contemporaries.