↓ Skip to main content

Subannular tube insertion: anatomical considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Laryngology & Otology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Subannular tube insertion: anatomical considerations
Published in
Journal of Laryngology & Otology, November 2015
DOI 10.1017/s0022215115003072
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To assess the distance between the bony groove created during subannular tubes placement and the chorda tympani, and examine the depth of the hypotympanum and retrotympanum. Grooves drilled in cadaver temporal bones at two levels were imaged to measure: the distance between the chorda tympani nerve and the tympanic sulcus, and the depth of the hypotympanum and the retrotympanum relative to the annulus. The chorda tympani was between 0 and 5 mm from the groove cut across the annulus. The hypotympanum average depth was 2 mm (0.44-6.40 mm) and the retrotympanum average depth was 1 mm (0-2.53 mm). Grooves drilled across the tympanic sulcus should be placed at a point 20 per cent of the height of the tympanic membrane or lower; this will ensure least risk of injury to the chorda tympani nerve. The depth of the hypotympanum and retrotympanum dictates that the posteroinferior part of a subannular tube flange should be approximately 2 × 1 mm.

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 2 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 9 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 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
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 05 July 2017.
All research outputs
#24,754,523
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Laryngology & Otology
#1,880
of 3,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,871
of 296,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Laryngology & Otology
#19
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,770 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 296,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 64% of its contemporaries.