| Title |
Techniques to ascertain correct endotracheal tube placement in neonates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010221.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georg M Schmölzer, Charles C Roehr |
| Abstract |
The success rate of correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement for junior medical staff is less than 50% and accidental oesophageal intubation is common. Rapid confirmation of correct tube placement is important because tube malposition is associated with serious adverse outcomes including hypoxaemia, death, pneumothorax and right upper lobe collapse.ETT position can be confirmed using chest radiography, but this is often delayed; hence, a number of rapid point-of-care methods to confirm correct tube placement have been developed. Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines advise that correct ETT placement should be confirmed by the observation of clinical signs and the detection of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2). Even though these devices are frequently used in the delivery room to assess tube placement, they can display false-negative results. Recently, newer techniques to assess correct tube placement have emerged (e.g. respiratory function monitor), which have been claimed to be superior in the assessment of tube placement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 72 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#8,462,155
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,055
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,783
of 257,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 257,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.