↓ Skip to main content

Automated weaning and SBT systems versus non-automated weaning strategies for weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 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 SBT systems versus non-automated weaning strategies for weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008638.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen EA Burns, Francois Lellouche, Rosane Nisenbaum, 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. SmartCare™ is a unique automated weaning system that measures selected respiratory variables, adapts ventilator output to individual patient needs by operationalizing predetermined algorithms and automatically conducts spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) when predetermined thresholds are met.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 19%
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Other 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 42 23%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Unspecified 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 22 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,543,187
of 12,355,197 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,249
of 8,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,574
of 211,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,197 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 211,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 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.