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 |
Feeding tube placement: auscultatory method and x-ray agreement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1983-1447.2015.04.54700 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariur Gomes Beghetto, Franciele Anziliero, Dória Migotto Leães, Elza Daniel de Mello |
| Abstract |
to evaluate the correlation between the auscultation test and X-ray when detecting the position of an enteral feeding tube. cross-sectional study in an intensive care unit in southern Brazil, in 2011. Clinical nurse and nurse researcher performed auscultation test recording the impressions regarding the placement of an enteral feeding tube in 80 patients. A doctor evaluated the X-ray. Kappa coefficient and PABAK reviewed the agreements. The X-ray showed that 70% of the enteral tubes were in the stomach, 27.4% in the duodenum, 1.3% in the esophagus, and 1.3% in the right lung. There was a weak correlation between clinical nurses and nurse researchers (PABAK = 0.054; P = 0.103), clinical nurses and X-rays (PABAK = 0.188; P = 0.111) and nurse researchers and X-rays (PABAK = 0.128; P = 0.107) . The auscultation test did not detect two risk conditions, enteral feeding tube in the esophagus and the bronchus. the auscultation test showed little agreement with the X-ray on the enteral feeding tube location. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,031
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#159
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,968
of 387,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 387,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.