| Title |
Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator‐associated pneumonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008367.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fang Hua, Huixu Xie, Helen V Worthington, Susan Furness, Qi Zhang, Chunjie Li |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 200 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 45 | 23% |
| Saudi Arabia | 9 | 5% |
| United States | 8 | 4% |
| Australia | 8 | 4% |
| Ireland | 8 | 4% |
| Japan | 7 | 4% |
| Spain | 7 | 4% |
| Chile | 6 | 3% |
| France | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Unknown | 77 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 130 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 47 | 24% |
| Scientists | 19 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 644 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 642 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 97 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 93 | 14% |
| Researcher | 54 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 47 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 5% |
| Other | 118 | 18% |
| Unknown | 200 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 226 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 119 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 2% |
| Engineering | 9 | 1% |
| Other | 52 | 8% |
| Unknown | 215 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 184. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#221,461
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#372
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,269
of 321,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 321,762 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.