| Title |
Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-021-00823-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arnaud W. Thille, Rémi Coudroy, Mai-Anh Nay, Arnaud Gacouin, Maxens Decavèle, Romain Sonneville, François Beloncle, Christophe Girault, Laurence Dangers, Alexandre Lautrette, Quentin Levrat, Anahita Rouzé, Emmanuel Vivier, Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou, Jean-Damien Ricard, Keyvan Razazi, Guillaume Barberet, Christine Lebert, Stephan Ehrmann, Alexandre Massri, Jeremy Bourenne, Gael Pradel, Pierre Bailly, Nicolas Terzi, Jean Dellamonica, Guillaume Lacave, René Robert, Stéphanie Ragot, Jean-Pierre Frat |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 4 | 13% |
| France | 4 | 13% |
| Colombia | 3 | 10% |
| Spain | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Design | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
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 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,189,363
of 25,046,944 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#280
of 1,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,256
of 527,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#12
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,944 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 1,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. 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 527,096 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.