↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007260.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven C Brooks, Nizar Hassan, Blair L Bigham, Laurie J Morrison

Abstract

This is the first update of the Cochrane review on mechanical chest compression devices published in 2011 (Brooks 2011). Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 18%
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 16 11%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 21%
Psychology 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 23 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,330,365
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,832
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,107
of 236,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 236,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 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 72% of its contemporaries.