↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of identifying the cricothyroid membrane in children using palpation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, July 2018
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
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy of identifying the cricothyroid membrane in children using palpation
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00540-018-2538-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Betul Basaran, Ayse Ilksen Egilmez, Necat Alatas, Aysun Ankay Yilbas, Mehmet Sargin

Abstract

Accurate identification of the cricothyroid membrane (CTM) has paramount importance in the event of a 'cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate' scenario. We sought to determine the ability of anesthesiologists to correctly identify the CTM in obese and non-obese children. Anesthesiologists were asked to mark the entry point of the cricothyroidotomy device with an ultraviolet invisible pen on obese and non-obese (BMI < 95th percentile for age and sex) children aged 7-12 years. A correct estimation was defined as a mark made between the upper and lower borders of the CTM and within the 3-mm midline. Twenty anesthesiologists palpated 30 obese and 50 non-obese children. The CTM was accurately identified with digital palpation in a total 55% of children, and there were no differences inaccurate identification rates of the CTM between obese and non-obese children [57 vs. 54%, respectively; median difference 3%; 95% confidence interval (- 20 to 25%); p = 0.82]. Accuracy was not correlated with any demographic or morphometric features of the children. Percutaneous identification of the CTM in children aged 7-12 years was poor and not significantly different for obese and non-obese children. Pre-procedural ultrasonography may help to identify the landmarks for cricothyroidotomy.

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 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 > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 64%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
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 01 November 2020.
All research outputs
#15,542,250
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#429
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,990
of 330,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 330,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.