↓ Skip to main content

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003212.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lemyre B, Davis PG, De Paoli AG, Kirpalani H, Davis, P G, Lemyre, B, de Paoli, A G, Lemyre, Brigitte, Davis, Peter G, De Paoli, Antonio G, Kirpalani, Haresh

Abstract

Previous randomised trials and meta-analyses have shown nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) to be a useful method of respiratory support after extubation. However, infants managed in this way sometimes 'fail' and require endotracheal reintubation with its attendant risks and expense. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a method of augmenting NCPAP by delivering ventilator breaths via nasal prongs. Older children and adults with chronic respiratory failure benefit from NIPPV and the technique has been applied to neonates. However, serious side effects including gastric perforation have been reported with older techniques to provide NIPPV.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 12 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Other 24 30%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#675,236
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,412
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,192
of 277,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 277,173 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.