↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009098.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Santa Cruz, Juan Ignacio Rojas, Rolando Nervi, Roberto Heredia, Agustín Ciapponi

Abstract

Mortality in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, but this modality has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 190 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 11%
Student > Master 19 10%
Other 19 10%
Other 52 27%
Unknown 34 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 45 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,999,481
of 17,457,801 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,657
of 11,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,154
of 163,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,457,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 163,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 62% of its contemporaries.