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 cuff-leak test: what are we measuring?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc3031 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel De Backer |
| Abstract |
Stridor is one of the most frequent causes of early extubation failure. The cuff-leak test may help to identify patients at risk to develop post-extubation laryngeal edema. However the discrimination power of the cuff-leak test is highly variable and can be use, at best, to detect patients at risk to develop edema but should not be used to postpone extubation as tracheal extubation can still be successful in many patients with a positive test. In this editorial, the author discuss the factors influencing the leak and hence its predictive value. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,336,149
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,041
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,282
of 140,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 140,940 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 50% of its contemporaries.