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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Peru | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 317 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 | 311 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 12% |
| Researcher | 34 | 11% |
| Other | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 70 | 22% |
| Unknown | 80 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 147 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 10% |
| Unknown | 88 | 28% |
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 16 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,548,208
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,099
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,710
of 210,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 210,606 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 52% of its contemporaries.