↓ 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 (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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 2 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 212 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 208 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 19%
Engineering 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 49 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#8,977,676
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,992
of 11,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,172
of 205,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#191
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 205,291 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.