↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2019
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
503 Mendeley
Title
Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005351.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Berbenetz, Yongjun Wang, James Brown, Charlotte Godfrey, Mahmood Ahmad, Flávia MR Vital, Pier Lambiase, Amitava Banerjee, Ameet Bakhai, Matthew Chong

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 503 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 500 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 11%
Student > Master 53 11%
Researcher 46 9%
Other 40 8%
Student > Postgraduate 37 7%
Other 95 19%
Unknown 175 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 185 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 11%
Unspecified 11 2%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Psychology 7 1%
Other 43 9%
Unknown 194 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 17 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,403,222
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,936
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,647
of 367,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 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 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 367,068 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 183 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 69% of its contemporaries.