↓ Skip to main content

Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010105.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Nicholson, Tim M Cook, Andrew F Smith, Sharon R Lewis, Stephanie S Reed

Abstract

The number of obese patients requiring general anaesthesia is likely to increase in coming years, and obese patients pose considerable challenges to the anaesthetic team. Tracheal intubation may be more difficult and risk of aspiration of gastric contents into the lungs is increased in obese patients. Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) offer an alternative airway to traditional tracheal intubation with potential benefits, including ease of fit and less airway disturbance. Although SADs are now widely used, clinical concerns remain that their use for airway management in obese patients may increase the risk of serious complications.

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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Postgraduate 20 11%
Other 17 10%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 22 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,055,771
of 14,360,928 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,721
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,715
of 161,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,360,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 161,913 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 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 60% of its contemporaries.