↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2004
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
319 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2004
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004104.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ram FS, Picot J, Lightowler J, Wedzicha JA, Ram, Felix SF, Picot, Joanna, Lightowler, Josephine, Wedzicha, Jadwiga A

Abstract

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is being used increasingly in the management of patients admitted to hospital with acute respiratory failure secondary to an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 215 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 38 16%
Student > Master 36 16%
Student > Postgraduate 35 15%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 62 27%
Unknown 19 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 74%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Psychology 3 1%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 21 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,411,669
of 17,646,151 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,114
of 11,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,101
of 198,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,646,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 198,355 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 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 54% of its contemporaries.