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 |
Airway management disasters in the ICU - lessons learned?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11641 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Byhahn, Erol Cavus |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: The C-MAC video laryngoscope substantially reduced poor glottic views and increased intubation success in ICU patients with at least one predictor for difficult intubation. However, all video-assisted and optical intubation devices have different view angles, thus producing different images with particular distortion, and even experts in 'old-fashioned' airway management need a substantial level of training with a certain device before using it safely and successfully in critical situations and patients. Video laryngoscopes, regardless of a particular brand or device, cannot be used intuitively - they require expert skills and routines to be turned into a life-saving airway management tool. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Australia | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 72% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Design | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
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 07 November 2012.
All research outputs
#7,959,162
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,224
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,959
of 202,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#46
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 202,202 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.