↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of inflationary non-invasive blood pressure (iNIBP) monitoring technology and conventional deflationary non-invasive blood pressure (dNIBP) measurement in detecting hypotension during…

Overview of attention for article published in JA Clinical Reports, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 149)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of inflationary non-invasive blood pressure (iNIBP) monitoring technology and conventional deflationary non-invasive blood pressure (dNIBP) measurement in detecting hypotension during cesarean section
Published in
JA Clinical Reports, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40981-017-0145-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akiko Yamashita, Shingo Irikoma

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Engineering 3 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 17%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,255,462
of 23,153,184 outputs
Outputs from JA Clinical Reports
#9
of 149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,047
of 442,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JA Clinical Reports
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 442,460 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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