| Title |
Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000104.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Filip Cools, Martin Offringa, Lisa M Askie |
| Abstract |
Respiratory failure due to lung immaturity is a major cause of mortality in preterm infants. Although the use of intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in neonates with respiratory failure saves lives, its use is associated with lung injury and chronic lung disease. A newer form of ventilation called high frequency oscillatory ventilation has been shown in experimental studies to result in less lung injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 404 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 401 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 13% |
| Other | 44 | 11% |
| Researcher | 41 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 6% |
| Other | 81 | 20% |
| Unknown | 126 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 166 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 39 | 10% |
| Unknown | 143 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,291,330
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,704
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,624
of 279,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#110
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 279,361 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 273 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.