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 |
Effects of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in preventing respiratory failure after extubation: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11249 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miguel R Gonçalves, Teresa Honrado, João Carlos Winck, José Artur Paiva |
| Abstract |
Weaning protocols that include noninvasive ventilation (NIV) decrease re-intubation rates and ICU length of stay. However, impaired airway clearance is associated with NIV failure. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) has been proven to be very effective in patients receiving NIV. We aimed to assess the efficacy of MI-E as part of an extubation protocol. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 7 | 58% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 209 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 13% |
| Researcher | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 100 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 52 | 24% |
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 05 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,685,143
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,217
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,245
of 169,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#25
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st 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 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 169,061 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 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.