| Title |
A randomized comparison of long-axis and short-axis imaging for in-plane ultrasound-guided popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter insertion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Anesthesia, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00540-014-1832-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Edward Kim, Steven K. Howard, Natasha Funck, T. Kyle Harrison, Tessa L. Walters, Michael J. Wagner, Toni Ganaway, Jonah Mullens, Bruce Lehnert, Edward R. Mariano |
| Abstract |
Ultrasound-guided long-axis in-plane sciatic perineural catheter insertion has been described but not validated. For the popliteal-sciatic nerve, we hypothesized that a long-axis in-plane technique, placing the catheter parallel and posterior to the nerve, results in faster onset of sensory anesthesia compared to a short-axis in-plane technique. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 73% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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 05 May 2014.
All research outputs
#18,371,293
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#568
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,643
of 227,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 227,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.