↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Continuous negative extrathoracic pressure or continuous positive airway pressure compared to conventional ventilation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Summary Policy documents Wikipedia Dimensions citations
Title
Continuous negative extrathoracic pressure or continuous positive airway pressure compared to conventional ventilation for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003699.pub4
Pubmed ID
24186774
Authors

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Arne Ohlsson, Jyotsna P Shah

View on publisher site

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 176 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 42 24%
Unknown 46 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 50 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,726,418
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,090
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,803
of 214,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#147
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 214,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.