| Title |
Lung protective ventilation strategy for the acute respiratory distress syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003844.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Petrucci, Carlo De Feo |
| Abstract |
Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury require mechanical ventilatory support. Acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury are further complicated by ventilator-induced lung injury. Lung protective ventilation strategies may lead to improved survival. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2003 and updated in 2007. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 370 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 45 | 12% |
| Researcher | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 8% |
| Other | 97 | 25% |
| Unknown | 89 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 211 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 22 | 6% |
| Unknown | 102 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,847,176
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,130
of 12,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,096
of 194,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 212 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 92nd 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 194,675 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.