↓ 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
316 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 316 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 307 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Researcher 34 11%
Other 33 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Other 72 23%
Unknown 59 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 18%
Psychology 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 78 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,597,180
of 17,436,984 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,963
of 11,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,697
of 240,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,436,984 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 11,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 240,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 59% of its contemporaries.