↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to severe acute exacerbations of asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Portugal 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 362 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 14%
Other 45 12%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Student > Postgraduate 31 8%
Other 80 21%
Unknown 91 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 202 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 9%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Psychology 9 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 97 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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
#988,595
of 21,346,872 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,316
of 12,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,265
of 291,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,346,872 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 12,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 291,853 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 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.