↓ Skip to main content

Ability of anaesthetists to identify a marked lumbar interspace

Overview of attention for article published in Anaesthesia, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
351 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ability of anaesthetists to identify a marked lumbar interspace
Published in
Anaesthesia, August 2008
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01547-4.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. R. Broadbent, W. B. Maxwell, R. Ferrie, D. J. Wilson, M. Gawne‐Cain, R. Russell

Abstract

Anaesthetists' ability to identify correctly a marked lumbar interspace was assessed in 100 patients undergoing spinal magnetic resonance imaging scans. Using ink, one anaesthetist marked an interspace on the lower spine and attempted to identify its level with the patient in the sitting position. A second anaesthetist attempted to identify the level with the patient in the flexed lateral position. A marker capsule was taped over the ink mark and a routine scan performed. The actual level of markers ranged from one space below to four spaces above the level at which the anaesthetist believed it to be. The marker was one space higher than assumed in 51% of cases and was identified correctly in only 29%. Accuracy was unaffected by patient position (sitting or lateral), although it was impaired by obesity (p = 0.001) and positioning of the markers high on the lower back (p < 0.001). The spinal cord terminated below L(1) in 19% of patients. This, together with the risk of accidentally selecting a higher interspace than intended for intrathecal injection, implies that spinal cord trauma is more likely when higher interspaces are selected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Other 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 39 29%
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 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,796,088
of 25,282,542 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#2,167
of 5,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,633
of 96,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#9
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,282,542 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 96,885 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.