↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients

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
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
Title
Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009901.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reinhard Strametz, Christoph Pachler, Johanna F Kramer, Christian Byhahn, Andrea Siebenhofer, Tobias Weberschock

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 11 8%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Psychology 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 35 24%

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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#6,089,848
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,894
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,481
of 226,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 226,817 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 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.