| Title |
High-flow nasal cannula therapy: clinical practice in intensive care units
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-019-0569-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emmanuel Besnier, Sinad Hobeika, Saad NSeir, Fabien Lambiotte, Damien Du Cheyron, Bertrand Sauneuf, Benoit Misset, Fabienne Tamion, Guillaume Schnell, Jack Richecoeur, Julien Maizel, Christophe Girault |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 7 | 25% |
| Spain | 4 | 14% |
| France | 3 | 11% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 7% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 53% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 25 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,189,111
of 24,843,842 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#278
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,494
of 346,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,843,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 346,078 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.