| Title |
Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2110-5820-4-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Paulo Nassar Junior, Marcelo Park |
| Abstract |
Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 3 | 20% |
| Spain | 2 | 13% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 7% |
| Turkey | 1 | 7% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 53% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 20% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 14% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,786,808
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#215
of 1,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,565
of 241,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 241,906 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them