↓ Skip to main content

Infraclavicular brachial plexus block for regional anaesthesia of the lower arm

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Infraclavicular brachial plexus block for regional anaesthesia of the lower arm
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005487.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ki Jinn Chin, Husni Alakkad, Sanjib D Adhikary, Mandeep Singh

Abstract

Several approaches exist to produce local anaesthetic blockade of the brachial plexus. It is not clear which is the technique of choice for providing surgical anaesthesia of the lower arm, although infraclavicular blockade (ICB) has several purported advantages. We therefore performed a systematic review of ICB compared to the other brachial plexus blocks (BPBs). This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 22 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,475,042
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,909
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,486
of 154,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 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 154,879 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.