↓ Skip to main content

Determination of the utility of the Intubation Difficulty Scale for use with indirect laryngoscopes

Overview of attention for article published in Anaesthesia, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Determination of the utility of the Intubation Difficulty Scale for use with indirect laryngoscopes
Published in
Anaesthesia, October 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06891.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. McElwain, A. Simpkin, J. Newell, J. G. Laffey

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Intubation Difficulty Scale is meaningful when used with indirect laryngoscopes. Data were analysed from previously published clinical trials from our group that compared the indirect laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope. For each laryngoscope type, the Intubation Difficulty Scale score obtained for each tracheal intubation was correlated with data for duration of the intubation attempt and with the user rated difficulty of the intubation attempt. The strengths of the correlations between these indices were then compared for tracheas intubated with the Macintosh vs the indirect laryngoscopes. The Intubation Difficulty Scale performed well when compared with data for duration and user rated difficulty of the intubation attempts for the both direct and indirect laryngoscopy. However, the correlation between the Intubation Difficulty Scale score and both user rated difficulty (p = 0.001) and the duration of tracheal intubation (p = 0.003) were significantly stronger for the Macintosh laryngoscope compared with the indirect laryngoscopes. In contrast, the correlation between user rated difficulty scores and the data for duration of tracheal intubation was not different between the device types. The Intubation Difficulty Scale performs less well with indirect laryngoscopes than with the Macintosh laryngoscope. These findings suggest the need for caution with the use of this score with indirect laryngoscopes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Physics and Astronomy 1 8%
Mathematics 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
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 15 December 2011.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#4,682
of 5,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,874
of 144,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#42
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 144,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.