| Title |
Strategies for the withdrawal of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006979.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luke A Jardine, Garry DT Inglis, Mark W Davies |
| Abstract |
While indications for the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and its associated risks and benefits are extensively investigated, the best strategy for the withdrawal of NCPAP remains unknown. In a survey of Australian and New Zealand Neonatologists, 56% stated that their approach to NCPAP weaning was "ad hoc" (Jardine 2008). At what point an infant is considered stable enough to attempt to start withdrawing their NCPAP is not clearly established. The criteria for a failed attempt at NCPAP withdrawal is also not clear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 44 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 50 | 42% |
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 13 September 2011.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,615
of 118,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 118,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.