↓ Skip to main content

Techniques to ascertain correct endotracheal tube placement in neonates

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 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
Techniques to ascertain correct endotracheal tube placement in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010221.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg M Schmölzer, Charles C Roehr

Abstract

The success rate of correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement for junior medical staff is less than 50% and accidental oesophageal intubation is common. Rapid confirmation of correct tube placement is important because tube malposition is associated with serious adverse outcomes including hypoxaemia, death, pneumothorax and right upper lobe collapse.ETT position can be confirmed using chest radiography, but this is often delayed; hence, a number of rapid point-of-care methods to confirm correct tube placement have been developed. Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines advise that correct ETT placement should be confirmed by the observation of clinical signs and the detection of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2). Even though these devices are frequently used in the delivery room to assess tube placement, they can display false-negative results. Recently, newer techniques to assess correct tube placement have emerged (e.g. respiratory function monitor), which have been claimed to be superior in the assessment of tube placement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Denmark 2 3%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Other 10 13%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 October 2014.
All research outputs
#8,462,155
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,055
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,783
of 257,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 257,922 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.