↓ 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
428 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 428 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 3 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 416 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 17%
Researcher 49 11%
Student > Bachelor 41 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 9%
Other 31 7%
Other 92 21%
Unknown 103 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 15%
Psychology 17 4%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 3%
Other 32 7%
Unknown 114 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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
#1,677,582
of 22,326,279 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,809
of 12,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,903
of 204,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,326,279 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 204,082 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.