↓ 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
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 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 298 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 295 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 13%
Researcher 37 12%
Other 33 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 65 22%
Unknown 57 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 10%
Unspecified 9 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 71 24%

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
#1,514,148
of 18,100,306 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,738
of 11,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,805
of 229,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,100,306 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 11,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 229,977 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 247 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.