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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The pericardial reflection and the tip of the central venous catheter — topographical analysis in stillborn babies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-016-3659-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frank Eifinger, Anne Vierzig, Bernhard Roth, Martin Scaal, Friederike Koerber |
| Abstract |
Central venous cannulation is widely used in neonatal critical care. Pericardial tamponade caused by vessel wall perforation can occur if the catheter tip induces extravasation at the level of the pericardium. To investigate the level of the superior pericardial reflection in stillborn babies. We dissected 20 bodies (11 female, mean gestational age 33 6/7 weeks, range 25-43 weeks), with careful opening of the thoracic area. After injecting contrast medium into the pericardial sac, we introduced a catheter through the right internal jugular vein. We then took radiographs to analyse the relationship between visual osseous landmarks and the pericardium. Mean distance between the pericardial reflection at its upper end and the first thoracic vertebra was 1.3 cm (standard deviation [SD]: 0.3 cm) and did not extend over the 3rd intercostal space. The mean distance from the entry of the superior vena cava into the pericardial sac and the 1st thoracic vertebra was 2.3 cm (SD: 0.5). The upper end of the pericardial reflection in neonates at autopsy lies below the middle of the 3rd thoracic vertebra. The tip of an upper inserted catheter should not extend below the level of the 3rd intercostal space. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 63% |
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 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,871
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,331
of 2,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,019
of 352,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#21
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,088 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 352,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.