| Title |
Positioning for acute respiratory distress in hospitalised infants and children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003645.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna Gillies, Deborah Wells, Abhishta P Bhandari |
| Abstract |
Because of the association of prone positioning with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) it is recommended that young infants be placed on their backs (supine). However, the prone position may be a non-invasive way of increasing oxygenation in participants with acute respiratory distress. Because of substantial differences in respiratory mechanics between adults and children and the risk of SIDS in young infants, a specific review of positioning for infants and young children with acute respiratory distress is warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 44 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 20% |
| Psychology | 9 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 51 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#8,296,727
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,927
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,203
of 178,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 178,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.