↓ Skip to main content

Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006056.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magdaline T Ladeira, Flávia M Ribeiro Vital, Regis B Andriolo, Brenda NG Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Maria S Peccin

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation is important in caring for patients with critical illness. Clinical complications, increased mortality, and high costs of health care are associated with prolonged ventilatory support or premature discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Weaning refers to the process of gradually or abruptly withdrawing mechanical ventilation. The weaning process begins after partial or complete resolution of the underlying pathophysiology precipitating respiratory failure and ends with weaning success (successful extubation in intubated patients or permanent withdrawal of ventilatory support in tracheostomized patients).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 164 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Unspecified 23 13%
Researcher 20 12%
Other 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 63 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 55%
Unspecified 30 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 16 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 June 2019.
All research outputs
#689,000
of 13,505,887 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,190
of 10,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,491
of 188,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,505,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 188,266 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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.