↓ Skip to main content

A feasibility study on bedside upper airway ultrasonography compared to waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location after intubation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Ultrasound Journal, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 147)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
A feasibility study on bedside upper airway ultrasonography compared to waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location after intubation
Published in
Critical Ultrasound Journal, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2036-7902-5-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osman Adi, Tan W Chuan, Manikam Rishya

Abstract

In emergency settings, verification of endotracheal tube (ETT) location is important for critically ill patients. Ignorance of oesophageal intubation can be disastrous. Many methods are used for verification of the endotracheal tube location; none are ideal. Quantitative waveform capnography is considered the standard of care for this purpose but is not always available and is expensive. Therefore, this feasibility study is conducted to compare a cheaper alternative, bedside upper airway ultrasonography to waveform capnography, for verification of endotracheal tube location after intubation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 23%
Student > Postgraduate 12 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 02 March 2015.
All research outputs
#825,079
of 11,441,779 outputs
Outputs from Critical Ultrasound Journal
#38
of 147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,288
of 133,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Ultrasound Journal
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,441,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 133,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.