↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 Mendeley
Title
Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006056.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magdaline T Ladeira, Flávia M Ribeiro Vital, Regis B Andriolo, Brenda NG Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Maria S Peccin

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation is important in caring for patients with critical illness. Clinical complications, increased mortality, and high costs of health care are associated with prolonged ventilatory support or premature discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Weaning refers to the process of gradually or abruptly withdrawing mechanical ventilation. The weaning process begins after partial or complete resolution of the underlying pathophysiology precipitating respiratory failure and ends with weaning success (successful extubation in intubated patients or permanent withdrawal of ventilatory support in tracheostomized patients).

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 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 262 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 14%
Researcher 32 12%
Other 25 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 71 26%
Unknown 57 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 16%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 68 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,072,935
of 18,846,954 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,682
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,800
of 199,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,846,954 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 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. 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 199,851 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 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.