| Title |
Appraisal of systemic inflammation and diagnostic markers in a porcine model of VAP: secondary analysis from a study on novel preventive strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-018-0206-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gianluigi Li Bassi, Raquel Guillamat Prats, Antonio Artigas, Eli Aguilera Xiol, Joan-Daniel Marti, Otavio T. Ranzani, Montserrat Rigol, Laia Fernandez, Andrea Meli, Denise Battaglini, Nestor Luque, Miguel Ferrer, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Pedro Póvoa, Davide Chiumello, Paolo Pelosi, Antoni Torres |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,241,200
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#216
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,836
of 350,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 350,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.