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 |
The Study Protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest) Study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1757-7241-21-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sten Rubertsson, Johan Silfverstolpe, Liselott Rehn, Thomas Nyman, Rob Lichtveld, Rene Boomars, Wendy Bruins, Björn Ahlstedt, Helena Puggioli, Erik Lindgren, David Smekal, Gunnar Skoog, Robert Kastberg, Anna Lindblad, David Halliwell, Martyn Box, Fredrik Arnwald, Bjarne Madsen Hardig, Douglas Chamberlain, Johan Herlitz, Rolf Karlsten |
| Abstract |
The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 18% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Librarian | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 25 March 2014.
All research outputs
#1,704,490
of 23,653,937 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#152
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,121
of 284,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 284,996 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.