↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mechanical insufflation‐exsufflation for people with neuromuscular disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 Mendeley
Title
Mechanical insufflation‐exsufflation for people with neuromuscular disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010044.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenda Morrow, Marco Zampoli, Helena van Aswegen, Andrew Argent

Abstract

People with neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) may have weak respiratory (breathing) muscles which makes it difficult for them to effectively cough and clear mucus from the lungs. This places them at risk of recurrent chest infections and chronic lung disease. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is one of a number of techniques available to improve cough efficacy and mucus clearance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 327 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Researcher 23 7%
Other 71 21%
Unknown 99 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 18%
Psychology 9 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Sports and Recreations 7 2%
Other 34 10%
Unknown 106 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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,362,968
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,295
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,209
of 319,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 319,706 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.