↓ Skip to main content

Clinical study replicability and the pursuit of excellence

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.
Title
Clinical study replicability and the pursuit of excellence
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1019-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Lanspa, Eliotte L. Hirshberg, Russell R. Miller, Alan H. Morris

Abstract

Comparisons of processes of care are common in critical care research. Often, these processes are neither explicit nor replicable and this can result in seemingly irreconcilable results. Here, we briefly review the article by Taniguchi and colleagues, who studied liberation from mechanical ventilation by using either a computerized weaning protocol or one driven by respiratory therapists. We discuss the implications of explicit protocols increasing replicability in clinical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,373,631
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,654
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,206
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#314
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 395,408 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.