↓ Skip to main content

Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010320.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The prevalence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2)) is increasing in both developed and developing countries, leading to a rise in the numbers of obese patients requiring general anaesthesia. Obese patients are at increased risk of anaesthetic complications, and tracheal intubation can be more difficult. Flexible intubation scopes (FISs) are recommended as an alternative method of intubation in these patients. Intubation with an FIS is considered an advanced method, requiring training and experience; therefore it may be underused in clinical practice. Patient outcomes following intubation with these scopes compared with other devices have not been systematically reviewed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 60%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 80%
Unspecified 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,070,177
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,407
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,167
of 237,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 237,278 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.