↓ Skip to main content

ICONIC study—conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
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.
Title
ICONIC study—conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Trials, February 2022
DOI 10.1186/s13063-022-06065-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. C. A. Grim, L. I. van der Wal, H. J. F. Helmerhorst, D. J. van Westerloo, P. Pelosi, M. J. Schultz, E. de Jonge, M. R. del Prado, J. Wigbers, M. J. Sigtermans, L. Dawson, P. L. J. van der Heijden, E. Y. Schriel-van den Berg, B. G. Loef, A. C. Reidinga, E. de Vreede, J. Qualm, E. C. Boerma, H. Rijnhart-de Jong, M. Koopmans, A. D. Cornet, T. Krol, M. Rinket, J. W. Vermeijden, A. Beishuizen, F. J. Schoonderbeek, J. van Holten, A. M. Tsonas, M. Botta, T. Winters, J. Horn, F. Paulus, M. Loconte, D. Battaglini, L. Ball, I. Brunetti

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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Arts and Humanities 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%

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 14 February 2022.
All research outputs
#14,220,798
of 21,174,193 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,712
of 5,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,003
of 379,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,174,193 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 379,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them