↓ Skip to main content

Automated weaning and spontaneous breathing trial systems versus non-automated weaning strategies for discontinuation time in invasively ventilated postoperative adults

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Automated weaning and spontaneous breathing trial systems versus non-automated weaning strategies for discontinuation time in invasively ventilated postoperative adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008639.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen EA Burns, Francois Lellouche, Martin R Lessard, Jan O Friedrich

Abstract

Automated systems use closed-loop control to enable ventilators to perform basic and advanced functions while supporting respiration. Selected automated systems can now not only measure selected respiratory variables and adapt ventilator output to individual patient needs by operationalizing predetermined algorithms but also automate the conduct of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 24 18%

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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#9,864,660
of 12,355,197 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,615
of 8,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,572
of 200,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,197 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 200,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.