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 |
Why is prone positioning so unpopular?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-016-0194-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason Chertoff |
| Abstract |
Recent studies have shown acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to be underdiagnosed and inadequately treated, as evidenced by underutilization of low-tidal volume ventilation. Despite a proven survival benefit in patients with severe ARDS, studies have also shown underutilization of prone positioning. Many questions persist as to the reasons for prone positioning's unpopularity. Additional studies are required to uncover the causes of this prone positioning underutilization phenomenon. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 December 2016.
All research outputs
#12,981,646
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#308
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,626
of 415,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 415,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.