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 |
Prone positioning does not affect cannula function during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or continuous renal replacement therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc1814 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia E Goettler, John P Pryor, Brian A Hoey, JoAnne K Phillips, Michelle C Balas, Michael B Shapiro |
| Abstract |
Prone positioning in respiratory failure has been shown to be a useful adjunct in the treatment of severe hypoxia. However, the prone position can result in dislodgment or malfunction of tubes and cannulae. Certain patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) may also benefit from positional therapy. The impact of cannula-related complications in these patients is potentially disastrous. The safety and efficacy of prone positioning of these patients has not been previously reported. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Norway | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 24% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,876
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,581
of 48,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 48,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.