↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the proximal and distal approaches for axillary vein catheterization under ultrasound guidance (PANDA) in cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the proximal and distal approaches for axillary vein catheterization under ultrasound guidance (PANDA) in cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13613-020-00703-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Su, Jun-yi Hou, Guo-guang Ma, Guang-wei Hao, Jing-chao Luo, Shen-ji Yu, Kai Liu, Ji-li Zheng, Yan Xue, Zhe Luo, Guo-wei Tu

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 July 2020.
All research outputs
#13,610,577
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#716
of 1,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,780
of 396,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#30
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 396,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.