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 |
Detection of ‘best’ positive end-expiratory pressure derived from electrical impedance tomography parameters during a decremental positive end-expiratory pressure trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13866 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Blankman, Djo Hasan, Groot Jebbink Erik, Diederik Gommers |
| Abstract |
This study compares different parameters derived from electrical impedance tomography (EIT) data to define 'best' positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during a decremental PEEP trial in mechanically-ventilated patients. 'Best' PEEP is regarded as minimal lung collapse and overdistention in order to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Greece | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 43 | 27% |
| Unknown | 28 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 101 | 62% |
| Engineering | 14 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 31 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,987
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,290
of 241,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#91
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 241,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.