↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 234 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 228 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Other 15 6%
Other 50 21%
Unknown 55 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 15%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Unspecified 6 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 57 24%

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
#3,479,289
of 19,394,767 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,111
of 11,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,265
of 171,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,394,767 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 171,396 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 123 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 53% of its contemporaries.