↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
375 Mendeley
Title
Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009176.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Burry, Louise Rose, Iain J McCullagh, Dean A Fergusson, Niall D Ferguson, Sangeeta Mehta

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 375 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Finland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 362 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 18%
Researcher 49 13%
Student > Bachelor 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 10%
Other 29 8%
Other 82 22%
Unknown 69 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 175 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 16%
Psychology 15 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 3%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 81 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 21 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,158,724
of 18,100,306 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,937
of 11,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,869
of 196,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,100,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 196,530 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 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.