↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001429.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Lecky, Daniele Bryden, Rod Little, Nam Tong, Chris Moulton

Abstract

Emergency intubation has been widely advocated as a life saving procedure in severe acute illness and injury associated with real or potential compromises to the patient's airway and ventilation. However, some initial data have suggested a lack of observed benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 246 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 14%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 12%
Other 28 11%
Student > Postgraduate 27 10%
Other 64 24%
Unknown 42 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 47 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,763,971
of 17,355,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,211
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,674
of 163,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,355,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 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 52% of its contemporaries.