↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative versus qualitative cultures of respiratory secretions for clinical outcomes in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Quantitative versus qualitative cultures of respiratory secretions for clinical outcomes in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006482.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berton DC, Kalil AC, Teixeira PJ, Danilo Cortozi Berton, Andre C Kalil, Paulo José Zimermann Teixeira

Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common infectious disease in intensive care units (ICUs). The best diagnostic approach to resolve this condition remains uncertain.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 101 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 40 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 73%
Unspecified 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,579,680
of 11,467,880 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,176
of 9,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,317
of 212,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,467,880 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 9,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 212,204 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.