↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Methods for securing endotracheal tubes in newborn infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Methods for securing endotracheal tubes in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007805.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Lai, Garry DT Inglis, Karen Hose, Luke A Jardine, Mark W Davies

Abstract

Securing the endotracheal tube is a common procedure in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adequate fixation of the tube is essential to ensure effective ventilation of the infant whilst minimising potential complications secondary to the intervention. Methods used to secure the endotracheal tube often vary between units and sometimes even between healthcare providers in the same nursery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 62 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 14%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 67 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,439,813
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,630
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,415
of 239,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#223
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 239,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.