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 |
Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12890-016-0289-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tao Wang, Lixi Zhang, Kai Luo, Jianqiang He, Yong Ma, Zongru Li, Na Zhao, Qun Xu, Yi Li, Xuezhong Yu |
| Abstract |
To determine the effects of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) as the initial mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes when used for treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunocompromised patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and other databases. Subgroup analyses by disease severity and causes of immunodeficiency were also conducted. Thirteen observational studies with a total of 2552 patients were included. Compared to IMV, NIV was shown to significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.80, P value = 0.007) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.20 to 0.61, P value < 0.0001) in overall analysis. Subgroup analysis showed NIV had great advantage over IMV for less severe, AIDS, BMT and hematological malignancies patients in reducing mortality and duration of ICU stay. The overall evidence we obtained shows NIV does more benefits or at least no harm to ARF patients with certain causes of immunodeficiency or who are less severe. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 3 | 19% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 6% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
| Singapore | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 19% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 25% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 30 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,204,488
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#228
of 1,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,788
of 338,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 338,382 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 93% of its contemporaries.