↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for the withdrawal of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Strategies for the withdrawal of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006979.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke A Jardine, Garry DT Inglis, Mark W Davies

Abstract

While indications for the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and its associated risks and benefits are extensively investigated, the best strategy for the withdrawal of NCPAP remains unknown. In a survey of Australian and New Zealand Neonatologists, 56% stated that their approach to NCPAP weaning was "ad hoc" (Jardine 2008). At what point an infant is considered stable enough to attempt to start withdrawing their NCPAP is not clearly established. The criteria for a failed attempt at NCPAP withdrawal is also not clear.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 45%
Unspecified 4 36%
Other 4 36%
Student > Master 3 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Other 7 64%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 173%
Unspecified 4 36%
Sports and Recreations 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%

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 13 September 2011.
All research outputs
#7,860,056
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,671
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,255
of 91,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 91,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.