↓ Skip to main content

Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001429.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Lecky, Daniele Bryden, Rod Little, Nam Tong, Chris Moulton

Abstract

Emergency intubation has been widely advocated as a life saving procedure in severe acute illness and injury associated with real or potential compromises to the patient's airway and ventilation. However, some initial data have suggested a lack of observed benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 203 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Student > Postgraduate 24 11%
Other 24 11%
Other 61 28%
Unknown 19 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 23 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,113,723
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,257
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,272
of 149,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 149,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 51% of its contemporaries.