↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 288 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 285 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Researcher 37 13%
Other 33 11%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 7%
Other 62 22%
Unknown 60 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 74 26%

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
#1,567,207
of 18,846,954 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,806
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,035
of 231,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,846,954 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 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 231,769 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 246 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 60% of its contemporaries.