↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
407 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 407 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 404 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 13%
Student > Master 47 12%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Postgraduate 34 8%
Other 33 8%
Other 69 17%
Unknown 129 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 11%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Engineering 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 1%
Other 31 8%
Unknown 143 35%

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 27 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,060,539
of 22,450,522 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,420
of 12,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,752
of 291,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,450,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 291,899 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 24 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 54% of its contemporaries.