↓ Skip to main content

Problems Facing the Visiting Anesthesia Team in an Underdeveloped Nation and Possible Solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Problems Facing the Visiting Anesthesia Team in an Underdeveloped Nation and Possible Solutions
Published in
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, June 2015
DOI 10.1097/scs.0000000000001629
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

More than 50% of the population in most developing countries is younger than 18 years, and it has been estimated that 85% of these children may require some sort of surgery before their 15th birthday. Common congenital surgical requirements are for cleft lip and palate, inguinal hernia, meningomyelocele, as well as hydrocephalus. In addition, there is a greater incidence of trauma experienced by pediatric patients. Burn and scald injuries are also common because of the proximity of domestic open fires and boiling pots of water. Infectious conditions such as osteomyelitis and skin abscesses are more frequent in developing countries than in the developed world.Given this backdrop, the visiting anesthesiology team is faced with significant logistic issues related to a large and varied set of surgeries. This requires careful planning to ensure there will be enough personnel, equipment, and drugs available for the trip. Anesthesia teams very often have to rely on their own supplies on these excursions. Careful questioning of previous visiting groups is vital in preparation. For example, it is pointless to bring cases of sevoflurane to an operating room where the anesthesia machine only has a halothane vaporizer.

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 35 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 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Unknown 17 49%
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 12 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
#1,876
of 4,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,027
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
#79
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 4,552 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. 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 281,411 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 237 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.