↓ Skip to main content

Diaphragmatic pacing stimulation in spinal cord injury: anesthetic and perioperative management

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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.
Title
Diaphragmatic pacing stimulation in spinal cord injury: anesthetic and perioperative management
Published in
Clinics, November 2012
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2012(11)07
Pubmed ID
Authors

ML Tedde, P Vasconcelos Filho, LA Hajjar, JP Almeida, GF Flora, EM Okumura, EA Osawa, JT Fukushima, MJ Teixeira, FR Galas, FB Jatene, JOC Auler Junior

Abstract

The standard therapy for patients with high-level spinal cord injury is long-term mechanical ventilation through a tracheostomy. However, in some cases, this approach results in death or disability. The aim of this study is to highlight the anesthetics and perioperative aspects of patients undergoing insertion of a diaphragmatic pacemaker.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 8 7%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 35%
Unspecified 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Engineering 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 26 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,513,524
of 12,516,869 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#104
of 366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,108
of 143,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,516,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 143,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.