↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
A randomised comparison of free‐handed vs air‐Q™ assisted fibreoptic‐guided tracheal intubation in children < 2 years of age
Published in
Anaesthesia, May 2014
DOI 10.1111/anae.12667
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We prospectively compared free-handed and air-Q™ assisted fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation in children < 2 years of age. Eighty healthy children were enrolled and randomly assigned to a technique (free-handed or air-Q assisted) and operator (trainee or attending). Time, number of attempts and manoeuvres required were assessed. There was no difference in median (IQR [range]) time to successful tracheal intubation between the free-handed (52.2 (34.8-67.7 [19.7-108.0]) s), and the air-Q assisted (60.3 (45.5-75.1 [28.1-129.0]) s; p = 0.13) groups, or the number of attempts needed. The air-Q assisted group required fewer manoeuvres to optimise the laryngeal view (median (IQR [range]) 0 (0-1 [0-2])) than the free-handed group (1 (1-1 [0-3]); p < 0.001). In conclusion, fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation times were similar with and without the use of the air-Q, but supraglottic airway devices may be a consideration for their other practical advantages.

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 17 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 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 12%
Lecturer 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Other 5 29%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 76%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#4,914
of 5,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,836
of 242,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#105
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 242,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.