↓ Skip to main content

Positive end expiratory pressure for preterm infants requiring conventional mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome or bronchopulmonary dysplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Positive end expiratory pressure for preterm infants requiring conventional mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome or bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004500.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Bamat, David Millar, Sanghee Suh, Haresh Kirpalani

Abstract

Conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) of neonates has been used as a treatment of respiratory failure for over 30 years. While CMV facilitates gas exchange, it may simultaneously damage the lung. Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) has received less attention than other ventilation parameters when considering this balance of benefit and possible harm. While an appropriate level of PEEP may exert substantial benefits in ventilation, both inappropriately low or high levels may lead to harm. An appropriate level of PEEP for neonates may also be best achieved by an individualized approach.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#7,860,058
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,720
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,365
of 117,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 117,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.