| Title |
Positive end‐expiratory pressure for preterm infants requiring conventional mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome or bronchopulmonary dysplasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004500.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Bamat, Julie Fierro, Yifei Wang, David Millar, Haresh Kirpalani |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 10 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 14% |
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Canada | 4 | 8% |
| Sweden | 2 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Uganda | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 14% |
| Scientists | 7 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 207 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 14% |
| Researcher | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 81 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 64 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 96 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 23 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,299,122
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,769
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,304
of 367,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 367,685 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 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 67% of its contemporaries.