You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical review: The ABC of weaning failure - a structured approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc9296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leo M Heunks, Johannes G van der Hoeven |
| Abstract |
About 20% to 30% of patients are difficult to wean from invasive mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of difficult weaning is complex. Accordingly, determining the reason for difficult weaning and subsequently developing a treatment strategy require a dedicated clinician with in-depth knowledge of the pathophysiology of weaning failure. This review presents a structural framework ('ABCDE') for the assessment and treatment of difficult-to-wean patients. Earlier recognition of the underlying causes may expedite weaning from mechanical ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 120 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 Kingdom | 26 | 22% |
| United States | 13 | 11% |
| Colombia | 3 | 3% |
| Argentina | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 3 | 3% |
| Belgium | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 40 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 80 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 26 | 22% |
| Scientists | 11 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 379 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | 1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 364 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 51 | 13% |
| Researcher | 51 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 48 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 101 | 27% |
| Unknown | 49 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 266 | 70% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 7% |
| Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 4% |
| Unknown | 59 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 24 October 2022.
All research outputs
#580,366
of 25,809,907 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#381
of 6,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,358
of 193,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 193,345 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.