↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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 versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007260.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven C Brooks, Nizar Hassan, Blair L Bigham, Laurie J Morrison

Abstract

This is the first update of the Cochrane review on mechanical chest compression devices published in 2011 (Brooks 2011). Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 20%
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Other 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 20%
Psychology 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 11 9%

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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#529,320
of 12,828,904 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,772
of 10,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,677
of 187,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,828,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 187,705 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.