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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc4887 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony Delaney, Sean M Bagshaw, Marek Nalos |
| Abstract |
Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 251 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 50 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 43 | 16% |
| Researcher | 34 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 61 | 23% |
| Unknown | 36 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 187 | 70% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Unknown | 44 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#4,836,164
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,282
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,407
of 84,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 31 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 79th 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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 84,287 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.