↓ Skip to main content

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: a two drug comparison and simultaneous polysomnography

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: a two drug comparison and simultaneous polysomnography
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00405-013-2548-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Carrasco Llatas, Gabriela Agostini Porras, Maria Teresa Cuesta González, Adelaida Rodrigo Sanbartolomé, Pau Giner Bayarri, Fernando Gómez-Pajares, José Dalmau Galofre

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare pharyngeal and polysomnographical findings during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) performed with either propofol or midazolam as a single sedative agent. It is prospective, non-randomized, double-blinded case series study. Sixteen patients with sleep disordered breathing were sedated first with propofol and after full wake up with midazolam. Simultaneous polysomnography (PSG) was performed. We compared the zones of obstruction and vibration found with both drugs using the VOTE classification. Simultaneous PSG findings are also compared. There were 15 men and one woman; the mean age was 42.7 years old, mean body mass index 26.9 kg/m(2). Average DISE duration was 20 min with Propofol and 14.3 min with Midazolam. The induced sleep stage obtained was N2 with both drugs. Outpatient physical exam did not correlate with drug-induced sleep findings. There was a good correlation between DISE results with both drugs in all the areas of collapse except the velum (p < 0.005). Using a continuous perfusion, there is a good agreement in the findings observed in DISE performed with propofol and midazolam and PSG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 26%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 56%
Unspecified 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#17,689,573
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,466
of 3,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,917
of 193,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#29
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 193,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.