↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial of radial artery cannulation guided by Doppler vs palpation vs ultrasound

Overview of attention for article published in Anaesthesia, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
34 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
46 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 controlled trial of radial artery cannulation guided by Doppler vs palpation vs ultrasound
Published in
Anaesthesia, April 2015
DOI 10.1111/anae.13062
Pubmed ID
Authors

K Ueda, E O Bayman, C Johnson, N J Odum, J Jy Lee

Abstract

We randomly allocated 749 participants to radial artery cannulation by anaesthetic trainees, guided by Doppler (244), palpation (256) or ultrasound (249). Ultrasound increased the rate of cannulation at the first attempt by 14% (95% CI 5-22%), from 39% with Doppler or palpation, p = 0.002 for both. There were no differences in the rates of cannulation 5 min after the procedure started: 147/244 (60%) with Doppler; 160/256 (63%) with palpation; and 171/249 (69%) with ultrasound, p = 0.13.

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 profiles of 34 X users 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 46 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 %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Linguistics 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 February 2025.
All research outputs
#1,403,786
of 33,201,260 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#684
of 6,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,517
of 300,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#4
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,201,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 300,738 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 93% of its contemporaries.