↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a proprietary intraluminal stiffening wire device on cecal intubation time and rate with used colonoscopes; a randomized, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Effect of a proprietary intraluminal stiffening wire device on cecal intubation time and rate with used colonoscopes; a randomized, controlled trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-6-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey M East

Abstract

Colonoscopes are designed with balance between flexibility, required to negotiate angulations, and stiffness, required to counteract the propensity for looping in unfixed sections of the colon, which retards advancement of the instrument. Colonoscopy can be challenging with old instruments that have lost native stiffness and become less responsive to torquing.A new intraluminal stiffening device has become available in two grades of stiffness. However, there is no published evidence of its effectiveness. This randomized, controlled trial was designed to determine the effectiveness of the stiffening wires in improving cecal intubation rate and time following routine application. A secondary analysis determines effectiveness of application only after intractable failure with the unaided colonoscope.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%

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 15 February 2013.
All research outputs
#6,077,799
of 7,068,914 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,519
of 1,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,946
of 112,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,068,914 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 1,848 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 112,803 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 45 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.