| Title |
Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12630-011-9620-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald E. G. Griesdale, David Liu, James McKinney, Peter T. Choi |
| Abstract |
The Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy appears to provide better glottic visualization than direct laryngoscopy. However, it remains unclear if it translates into increased success with intubation. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 22 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 47 | 24% |
| Unknown | 33 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 132 | 68% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,631,180
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#193
of 2,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,761
of 153,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 153,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.