↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Protocolized versus non‐protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
444 Mendeley
Title
Protocolized versus non‐protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006904.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronagh Blackwood, Karen EA Burns, Chris R Cardwell, Peter O'Halloran

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 435 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 13%
Student > Bachelor 50 11%
Researcher 43 10%
Other 39 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 7%
Other 86 19%
Unknown 135 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 14%
Social Sciences 11 2%
Psychology 10 2%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 40 9%
Unknown 155 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,358,214
of 25,376,646 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,867
of 13,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,536
of 270,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 270,326 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 57% of its contemporaries.