| Title |
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to severe acute exacerbations of asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004360.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Jie Lim, Redhuan Mohammed Akram, Kristin V Carson, Satya Mysore, Nadina A Labiszewski, Jadwiga A Wedzicha, Brian H Rowe, Brian J Smith |
| Abstract |
Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition causing inflammation and changes to the airways. Care of people with asthma includes routine and urgent management across primary and tertiary care; however, due to sub-optimal long-term care and delays in obtaining help during acute exacerbations, the mortality and morbidity related to asthma is still a major health concern. There is reason to believe that non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) could be beneficial to patients with severe acute asthma; however, the evidence surrounding the efficacy of NPPV is unclear, despite its common use in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 1% |
| Unknown | 374 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 13% |
| Researcher | 45 | 11% |
| Other | 44 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 8% |
| Other | 85 | 22% |
| Unknown | 100 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 203 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 7% |
| Unknown | 106 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,191,052
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,707
of 12,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,279
of 283,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 12,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 283,072 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.