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 |
Continuous endotracheal tube cuff pressure control system protects against ventilator-associated pneumonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13837 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leonardo Lorente, María Lecuona, Alejandro Jiménez, Lisset Lorenzo, Isabel Roca, Judith Cabrera, Celina Llanos, María L Mora |
| Abstract |
The use of a system for continuous control of endotracheal tube cuff pressure reduced the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 112 patients but not in another RCT with 142 patients. In several guidelines on the prevention of VAP, the use of a system for continuous or intermittent control of endotracheal cuff pressure is not reviewed. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of VAP in a large sample of patients (n = 284) treated with either continuous or intermittent control of endotracheal tube cuff pressure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 | 5 | 24% |
| Canada | 3 | 14% |
| Spain | 2 | 10% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Greece | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 22% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 18% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 42 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 17 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,263,754
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,985
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,312
of 241,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 241,057 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.