↓ Skip to main content

Permissive hypoxaemia versus normoxaemia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Permissive hypoxaemia versus normoxaemia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009931.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward T Gilbert-Kawai, Kay Mitchell, Daniel Martin, John Carlisle, Michael PW Grocott

Abstract

Permissive hypoxaemia describes a concept in which a lower level of arterial oxygenation (PaO2) than usual is accepted to avoid the detrimental effects of high fractional inspired oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation. Currently however, no specific threshold is known that defines permissive hypoxaemia, and its use in adults remains formally untested. The importance of this systematic review is thus to determine whether any substantial evidence is available to support the notion that permissive hypoxaemia may improve clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 39 27%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 38 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
#4,123,977
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,403
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,321
of 196,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 196,441 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.