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 |
Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giovanni Mistraletti, Michele Umbrello, Silvia Salini, Paolo Cadringher, Paolo Formenti, Davide Chiumello, Cristina Villa, Riccarda Russo, Silvia Francesconi, Federico Valdambrini, Giacomo Bellani, Alessandra Palo, Francesca Riccardi, Enrica Ferretti, Maurilio Festa, Anna Maria Gado, Martina Taverna, Cristina Pinna, Alessandro Barbiero, Pier Alda Ferrari, Gaetano Iapichino |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 States | 17 | 23% |
| Japan | 5 | 7% |
| Spain | 4 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 5% |
| Colombia | 4 | 5% |
| Mexico | 3 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Qatar | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 15% |
| Scientists | 5 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 56 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 03 August 2020.
All research outputs
#995,368
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#768
of 6,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,888
of 450,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 450,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.