The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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.
| Title |
Non‐pharmacological interventions for managing delirium in hospitalised patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005995.pub2 |
| Authors |
Elizabeth A Teale, Najma Siddiqi, Andrew Clegg, Oliver M Todd, John Young |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Comoros | 1 | 8% |
| Oman | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 36% |
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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,333,984
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,345
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,327
of 325,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 325,073 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 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.