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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Percutaneous tracheostomy: comparison of Ciaglia and Griggs techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc667 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José M Añón, Vicente Gómez, Mª Paz Escuela, Vicente De Paz, Luis F Solana, Rosa M De La Casa, Juan C Pérez, Eugenio Zeballos, Luis Navarro |
| Abstract |
Although the standard tracheostomy described in 1909 by Jackson has been extensively used in critical patients, a more simple procedure that can be performed at the bedside is needed. Since 1957 several different types of percutaneous tracheostomy technique have been described. The purpose of the present study was to compare two bedside percutaneous tracheostomy techniques: percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and the guidewire dilating forceps (GWDF). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 43 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 66% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
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 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,396
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,763
of 41,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. 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 41,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.