↓ Skip to main content

The relationship between head and neck position and endotracheal tube intracuff pressure in the pediatric population

Overview of attention for article published in Paediatric Anaesthesia, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Article details
Title
The relationship between head and neck position and endotracheal tube intracuff pressure in the pediatric population
Published in
Paediatric Anaesthesia, November 2013
DOI 10.1111/pan.12308
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Over the past few years, there has been a change in clinical practice with a transition to the use of cuffed instead of uncuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) in pediatric patients. These changes have led to concerns regarding unsafe intracuff pressures in pediatric patients, which may result in postoperative morbidity. To avoid these issues, it is generally suggested that the intracuff pressure be maintained at ≤30 cmH2 O. The current study prospectively assesses the changes in intracuff pressure related to alterations in head and neck position in pediatric patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Lecturer 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 38%
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 18 November 2013.
All research outputs
#28,676,353
of 34,454,098 outputs
Outputs from Paediatric Anaesthesia
#2,273
of 2,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,289
of 372,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Paediatric Anaesthesia
#36
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,454,098 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,876 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 372,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.