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 |
Tooth injury in anaesthesiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.04.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José Miguel Brandão Ribeiro de Sousa, Joana Irene de Barros Mourão |
| Abstract |
Dental injury is the most common complication of general anaesthesia and has significant physical, economic and forensic consequences. The aim of this study is to review on the characteristics of dental injury associated with anaesthesiology and existing methods of prevention. In this review, the time of anaesthesia in which the dental injury occurs, the affected teeth, the most frequent type of injury, established risk factors, prevention strategies, protection devices and medico-legal implications inherent to its occurrence are approached. Before initiating any medical procedure that requires the use of classic laryngoscopy, a thorough and detailed pre-aesthetic evaluation of the dental status of the patient is imperative, in order to identify teeth at risk, analyze the presence of factors associated with difficult intubation and outline a prevention strategy that is tailored to the risk of dental injury of each patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 States | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 43% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#5,289,494
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,798
of 295,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 295,931 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them