↓ Skip to main content

Sedation during bronchoscopy: data from a nationwide sedation and monitoring survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
Title
Sedation during bronchoscopy: data from a nationwide sedation and monitoring survey
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0275-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Gaisl, Daniel J. Bratton, Ludwig T. Heuss, Malcolm Kohler, Christian Schlatzer, Marco P. Zalunardo, Martin Frey, Daniel Franzen

Abstract

There is limited knowledge on practice patterns in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), the use of propofol, and monitoring during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The purpose of this study was to assess the current practice patterns of FBs and to focus on the use of propofol, the education of the proceduralist, and the involvement of anaesthesiologists during FB. An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 299 pulmonologists. Only respondents who were active physicians in adult respiratory medicine performing FB were subsequently analysed. The response rate was 78 % and 27,149 FB in the previous 12 months were analysed. The overall sedation-related morbidity rate was 0.02 % and mortality was 7/100'000 FB. Sedation was used in 95 % of bronchoscopies. The main drugs used for PSA were propofol (77 %) and midazolam (46 %). In 84 % of PSAs propofol was used without the attendance of an anaesthesiologist. The use of propofol was associated with high volume bronchoscopists (p < 0.010) and career-young pulmonologists (p < 0.001). While monitoring vital parameters has become standard practice, pulmonologists reported a very low rate of systematic basic education and training in the field of PSA (50 %). In Switzerland, PSA during FB is mostly performed with propofol without the attendance of an anaesthesiologist and the use of this drug is expected to increase in the future. While monitoring standards are very high there is need for policies to improve education, systematic training, and support for pulmonologists for PSA during FB.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,820,309
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#622
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,302
of 371,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 2,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 371,472 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.