↓ 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 5% 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 (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 23 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Other 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Psychology 6 5%
Engineering 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 15 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#820,957
of 16,493,152 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,218
of 11,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,918
of 191,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,493,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 191,714 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 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.