↓ Skip to main content

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009235.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Rose, Marcus J Schultz, Chris R Cardwell, Philippe Jouvet, Danny F McAuley, Bronagh Blackwood

Abstract

Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 212 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 19%
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Other 19 9%
Other 51 24%
Unknown 28 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Psychology 10 5%
Engineering 8 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 40 18%

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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,191,514
of 14,123,268 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,780
of 10,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,244
of 189,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,123,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 189,702 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.