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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Balloon Eustachian tuboplasty under local anesthesia: Is it feasible?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Laryngoscope, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/lary.26488 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Veera Luukkainen, Ilkka Kivekäs, Sari Hammarén‐Malmi, Markus Rautiainen, Leena Pöyhönen, Antti A. Aarnisalo, Jussi Jero, Saku T. Sinkkonen |
| Abstract |
To study whether balloon Eustachian tuboplasty (BET) is a feasible and safe procedure under local anesthesia. Prospective multicenter case-control study. Patients undergoing either BET (n = 13) or endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) (n = 12) under local anesthesia, with the possibility of sedation and analgesia, were monitored during the procedure and recovery period for possible adverse effects. After the procedure, the patients responded to a questionnaire assessing their experience. No adverse effects were detected in the BET group. Patients in the BET group reported similar Visual Analog Scale scores for pain during the operation as the ESS group (5.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.2 ± 0.7, mean ± standard error of the mean). However, patients in the BET group experienced more discomfort (4.2 ± 0.6 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3, respectively, P = 0.049). Seventy-seven and 92% of the patients in the BET and ESS groups, respectively, considered the anesthesia and pain relief to be sufficient. Patients from both the BET and ESS groups were almost devoid of pain 1 to 2 hours postoperatively (0.8 ± 0.2 and 1.4 ± 0.3, respectively). In total, 12 of 13 patients in the BET group, and all 12 patients in the ESS group, would choose local anesthesia with sedation and analgesia if they needed to undergo the same procedure again. BET is a safe and feasible procedure under monitored anesthesia care, including local anesthesia along with sedation and analgesia. There is need for further methodological improvement to reduce pain and discomfort during the operation. 4. Laryngoscope, 127:1021-1025, 2017. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 369. 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 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#86,716
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from The Laryngoscope
#10
of 7,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,160
of 431,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Laryngoscope
#1
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 431,607 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 99% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.