| 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 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 403 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 | 383 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 13% |
| Other | 45 | 11% |
| Researcher | 44 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 84 | 21% |
| Unknown | 108 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 201 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 25 | 6% |
| Unknown | 114 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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
#1,406,366
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,011
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,478
of 287,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 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 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 287,251 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.