↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Partial liquid ventilation for preventing death and morbidity in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 Mendeley
Title
Partial liquid ventilation for preventing death and morbidity in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003707.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imelda M Galvin, Andrew Steel, Ruxandra Pinto, Niall D Ferguson, Mark William Davies

Abstract

Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are syndromes of severe respiratory failure that are associated with substantial mortality and morbidity. Artifical ventilatory support is commonly required and may exacerbate lung injury. Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) has been proposed as a less injurious form of ventilatory support for these patients. Although PLV has been shown to improve gas exchange and to reduce inflammation in experimental models of ALI, a previous systematic review did not find any evidence to support or refute its use in humans with ALI and ARDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 14%
Researcher 33 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Other 19 7%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 86 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 13%
Psychology 12 4%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 91 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,891,059
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,288
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,248
of 209,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 209,674 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.