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 |
Assessment of the light intensity of otoscopes utilized in teaching hospitals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.07.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vinicius Ribas Fonseca, Giovana Bittencourt Basso, Mariana Nagata Cavalheiro |
| Abstract |
To attain an accurate otoscopic diagnosis, a functioning device with adequate capacity must be used. Evaluate the light intensity of otoscopes, comparing it utilizing the batteries present at the moment of calibration and after new batteries were supplied. Cross-sectional study of a historical cohort, which assessed 38 otoscopes, measuring the light intensity with the batteries present at the moment of assessment compared to the intensity with new batteries, as well as charge of the test batteries and the new batteries. The mean of the sum of new batteries' charge was 3.19V, and of the test batteries was 2.70V, representing a decrease of 18.02% in charge. The mean luminosity with the new batteries was 366.89lumens, whereas in the test batteries it was 188.32lumens, representing a decrease of 83.75% in the light intensity. Student's t-test was applied for data comparison, showing a statistical difference between the light intensity with the original batteries and the new batteries (p=0.0001; CI=0.95). There was a statistically significant difference between the proportions of light intensity in the otoscopes. A small variation in battery charge results in a great variation in light. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 29% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 14% |
| Energy | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#336
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,449
of 275,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 275,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.