↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
389 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 389 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 383 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 16%
Researcher 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 8%
Other 27 7%
Other 78 20%
Unknown 106 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 134 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 13%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Engineering 12 3%
Other 43 11%
Unknown 121 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#6,876,979
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,039
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,498
of 244,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 244,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.