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 |
Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13900 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao-ling Gu, Guan-nan Wu, Yan-wen Yao, Dong-hong Shi, Yong Song |
| Abstract |
Comprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 4 | 21% |
| Italy | 3 | 16% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 5% |
| Greece | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 26% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Engineering | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,806,529
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,414
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,269
of 240,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#28
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 63% 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 240,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.