↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
318 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009235.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Rose, Marcus J Schultz, Chris R Cardwell, Philippe Jouvet, Danny F McAuley, Bronagh Blackwood

Abstract

Automated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 312 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 18%
Researcher 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 9%
Other 24 8%
Other 66 21%
Unknown 68 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 14%
Psychology 14 4%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Engineering 11 3%
Other 38 12%
Unknown 82 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#5,221,818
of 21,340,745 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,218
of 12,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,543
of 205,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,340,745 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 205,741 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.