| 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, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004500.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Bamat, David Millar, Sanghee Suh, Haresh Kirpalani |
| Abstract |
Conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) of neonates has been used as a treatment of respiratory failure for over 30 years. While CMV facilitates gas exchange, it may simultaneously damage the lung. Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) has received less attention than other ventilation parameters when considering this balance of benefit and possible harm. While an appropriate level of PEEP may exert substantial benefits in ventilation, both inappropriately low or high levels may lead to harm. An appropriate level of PEEP for neonates may also be best achieved by an individualized approach. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,272
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,763
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,905
of 245,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 245,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.