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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Manômetros artesanais não medem com precisão a pressão de balão dos tubos endotraqueais
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.5935/0103-507x.20150037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raquel Annoni, Antonio Evanir de Almeida |
| Abstract |
To test the agreement between two handcrafted devices and a cuff-specific manometer. The agreement between two handcrafted devices adapted to measure tracheal tube cuff pressure and a cuff-specific manometer was tested on 79 subjects. The cuff pressure was measured with a commercial manometer and with two handcrafted devices (HD) assembled with aneroid sphygmomanometers (HD1 and HD2). The data were compared using Wilcoxon and Spearman tests, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limit-of-agreement analysis. Cuff pressures assessed with handcrafted devices were significantly different from commercial device measurements (pressures were higher when measured with HD1 and lower with HD2). The ICCs between the commercial device and HD1 and HD2 were excellent (ICC = 0.8 p < 0.001) and good (ICC = 0.66, p < 0.001), respectively. However, the Bland- Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement between HD1 and HD2 and the commercial device. The handcrafted manometers do not provide accurate cuff pressure measurements when compared to a cuff-specific device and should not be used to replace the commercial cuff manometers in mechanically ventilated patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 29% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#282
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,897
of 281,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 281,201 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.