↓ 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
65 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 Mr Vital, Régis B Andriolo, Brenda Ng Andriolo, Alvaro N Atallah, Maria S Peccin, Ladeira MT, Vital FM, Andriolo RB, Andriolo BN, Atallah AN, Peccin MS

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Chile 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 58 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 23%
Other 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Unspecified 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 July 2017.
All research outputs
#631,402
of 8,859,682 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,489
of 8,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,821
of 177,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,859,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 177,440 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 71% of its contemporaries.