↓ Skip to main content

Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
309 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
Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006902.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joke Bradt, Cheryl Dileo

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation often causes major distress and anxiety in patients. The sensation of breathlessness, frequent suctioning, inability to talk, uncertainty regarding surroundings or condition, discomfort, isolation from others, and fear contribute to high levels of anxiety. Side effects of analgesia and sedation may lead to the prolongation of mechanical ventilation and, subsequently, to a longer length of hospitalization and increased cost. Therefore, non-pharmacological interventions should be considered for anxiety and stress management. Music interventions have been used to reduce anxiety and distress and improve physiological functioning in medical patients; however, their efficacy for mechanically ventilated patients needs to be evaluated. This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 7 2%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 296 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 20%
Other 44 14%
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Student > Postgraduate 29 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 9%
Other 112 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 20%
Psychology 40 13%
Unspecified 30 10%
Arts and Humanities 8 3%
Other 34 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 26 November 2017.
All research outputs
#525,028
of 12,347,469 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,453
of 8,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,751
of 270,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,347,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 270,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.