↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009082.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronagh Blackwood, Maeve Murray, Anthony Chisakuta, Chris R Cardwell, Peter O'Halloran

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation is a critical component of paediatric intensive care therapy. It is indicated when the patient's spontaneous ventilation is inadequate to sustain life. Weaning is the gradual reduction of ventilatory support and the transfer of respiratory control back to the patient. Weaning may represent a large proportion of the ventilatory period. Prolonged ventilation is associated with significant morbidity, hospital cost, psychosocial and physical risks to the child and even death. Timely and effective weaning may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and may reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged ventilation. However, no consensus has been reached on criteria that can be used to identify when patients are ready to wean or the best way to achieve it.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 241 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 18%
Researcher 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 16 6%
Other 59 24%
Unknown 57 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 18%
Psychology 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 64 26%

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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,016,302
of 15,462,543 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,731
of 11,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,772
of 193,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,462,543 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 11,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 193,170 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 210 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 52% of its contemporaries.