↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 71%
Computer Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 0 0%

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
#4,223,471
of 17,465,371 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,643
of 5,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,801
of 244,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,465,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 244,969 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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.