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 |
Effect of bevel direction on the success rate of ultrasound-guided radial arterial catheterization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-016-0202-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sung-Won Min, Hyong-Rae Cho, Young-Tae Jeon, Ah-Young Oh, Hee-Pyoung Park, Chun Woo Yang, Woo Hee Choi, Byung-Gun Kim |
| Abstract |
This study assessed the effect of bevel direction on the success rate of ultrasound guided radial artery catheterization. A total of 204 patients requiring radial artery catheterization were randomly divided into bevel-up (n = 102) and bevel-down (n = 102) groups. Success rate, cannulation time, and number of attempts were compared groups. In the bevel-down group, an arterial line was placed on the first attempt in 86 of 102 (84.3 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 76 % to 90 %) patients versus 73 of 102 (71.6 %; 95 % CI = 62.1 % to 79.4 %) in the bevel-up group (p = 0.028). In the bevel-down group, the mean time to a successful radial arterial cannulation was 33.3 ± 6.3 seconds (95 % CI = 32.1-34.6) versus 35.9 ± 7.6 seconds (95 % CI = 34.4-37.2) in the bevel-up group (p = 0.011). The median score was 33.2 and interquartile range [IQR] was 10.9 (30.3-41.2) for the mean cannulation time in the bevel-up group. In the bevel-down group, the mean score was 32.3 (IQR 3.90, 30-33.9) for mean cannulation time. In the bevel-down group, 11 of 102 (7 %; 95 % CI = 0 to 16 %) patients developed a posterior wall puncture versus 22 of 102 ((21.6 %; 95 % CI = 14.7 to 17.2 %) in the bevel-up group. The bevel-down approach during ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization exhibited a higher success with fewer complications compared to the bevel-up approach. Clinical Research Information Service is Korean Clinical Trials Registry ( KCT0001836 ). It was registered retrospectively 30th Nov 2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 17% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,542,512
of 24,995,611 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#165
of 1,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,223
of 362,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,995,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,679 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 362,822 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.