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 |
Mechanical ventilation modes for respiratory distress syndrome in infants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0843-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Changsong Wang, Libo Guo, Chunjie Chi, Xiaoyang Wang, Lei Guo, Weiwei Wang, Nana Zhao, Yibo Wang, Zhaodi Zhang, Enyou Li |
| Abstract |
The effects of different mechanical ventilation (MV) modes on mortality outcome in infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) are not well known. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 2 | 15% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,213,825
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,931
of 6,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,250
of 390,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#320
of 550 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 390,907 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 550 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.