↓ Skip to main content

Do heart and respiratory rate variability improve prediction of extubation outcomes in critically ill patients?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Do heart and respiratory rate variability improve prediction of extubation outcomes in critically ill patients?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13822
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew JE Seely, Andrea Bravi, Christophe Herry, Geoffrey Green, André Longtin, Tim Ramsay, Dean Fergusson, Lauralyn McIntyre, Dalibor Kubelik, Donna E Maziak, Niall Ferguson, Samuel M Brown, Sangeeta Mehta, Claudio Martin, Gordon Rubenfeld, Frank J Jacono, Gari Clifford, Anna Fazekas, John Marshall

Abstract

Prolonged ventilation and failed extubation are associated with increased harm and cost. The added value of heart and respiratory rate variability (HRV and RRV) during spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) to predict extubation failure remains unknown.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 142 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 40 26%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 35%
Engineering 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 37 25%

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 23 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,257,445
of 21,362,911 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,468
of 5,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,520
of 207,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#27
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,362,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 207,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 61% of its contemporaries.