↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rescue high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1998
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Rescue high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1998
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000438
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tushar Bhuta, David J Henderson-Smart

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 25%
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 6 11%
Lecturer 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 23%

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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#15,134,387
of 18,905,383 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,957
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,131
of 319,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,905,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 319,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.