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 control of tracheal cuff pressure: an effective measure to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0512-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anahita Rouzé, Emmanuelle Jaillette, Saad Nseir |
| Abstract |
In a previous issue of Critical Care, Lorente and colleagues reported the results of a prospective observational study aiming at evaluating the effect of continuous control of cuff pressure (Pcuff ) on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The results suggest a beneficial impact of this intervention on VAP prevention, which is in line with the results of a recent randomized controlled study. However, another randomized controlled study found no significant impact of continuous control of Pcuff on VAP incidence. Several differences regarding the device used to control Pcuff, study population, and design might explain the different reported results. Future randomized multicenter studies are needed to confirm the beneficial effect of continuous control of Pcuff on VAP incidence. Furthermore, the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of different available devices should be compared. Meanwhile, given the single-center design and the limitations of the available studies, no strong recommendation can be made regarding continuous control of Pcuff as a preventive measure of VAP. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 72% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
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 14 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,804
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,370
of 250,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#72
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 250,094 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 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.