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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of seven videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope in manikins by experienced and novice personnel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anaesthesia, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/anae.13413 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B M A Pieters, N E R Wilbers, M Huijzer, B Winkens, A A J van Zundert |
| Abstract |
Videolaryngoscopy is often reserved for 'anticipated' difficult airways, but thereby can result in a higher overall rate of complications. We observed 65 anaesthetists, 67 residents in anaesthesia, 56 paramedics and 65 medical students, intubating the trachea of a standardised manikin model with a normal airway using seven devices: Macintosh classic laryngoscope, Airtraq(®) , Storz C-MAC(®) , Coopdech VLP-100(®) , Storz C-MAC D-Blade(®) , GlideScope Cobalt(®) , McGrath Series5(®) and Pentax AWS(®) ) in random order. Time to and proportion of successful intubation, complications and user satisfaction were compared. All groups were fastest using devices with a Macintosh-type blade. All groups needed significantly more attempts using the Airtraq and Pentax AWS (all p < 0.05). Devices with a Macintosh-type blade (classic laryngoscope and C-MAC) scored highest in user satisfaction. Our results underline the importance of variability in device performance across individuals and staff groups, which have important implications for which devices hospital providers should rationally purchase. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 11 | 23% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Australia | 4 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Sweden | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 19% |
| Scientists | 5 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 27% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 03 August 2021.
All research outputs
#946,844
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#502
of 5,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,332
of 315,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#7
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 315,629 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 91% of its contemporaries.