↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
403 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006902.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joke Bradt, Cheryl Dileo

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation often causes major distress and anxiety in patients. The sensation of breathlessness, frequent suctioning, inability to talk, uncertainty regarding surroundings or condition, discomfort, isolation from others, and fear contribute to high levels of anxiety. Side effects of analgesia and sedation may lead to the prolongation of mechanical ventilation and, subsequently, to a longer length of hospitalization and increased cost. Therefore, non-pharmacological interventions should be considered for anxiety and stress management. Music interventions have been used to reduce anxiety and distress and improve physiological functioning in medical patients; however, their efficacy for mechanically ventilated patients needs to be evaluated. This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 403 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 5 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 394 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 18%
Student > Bachelor 58 14%
Other 49 12%
Researcher 41 10%
Student > Postgraduate 28 7%
Other 96 24%
Unknown 59 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 147 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 75 19%
Psychology 50 12%
Social Sciences 10 2%
Arts and Humanities 10 2%
Other 43 11%
Unknown 68 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 22 August 2020.
All research outputs
#589,053
of 17,449,565 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,442
of 11,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,628
of 313,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,449,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,688 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 done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 313,785 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.