↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of airway management associated hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin follow-up study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Evaluation of airway management associated hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin follow-up study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1757-7241-21-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Gruber, Sabine Nabecker, Philipp Wohlfarth, Anita Ruetzler, Dominik Roth, Oliver Kimberger, Henrik Fischer, Michael Frass, Kurt Ruetzler

Abstract

Airway management is an important component of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Recent guidelines recommend keeping any interruptions of chest compressions as short as possible and not lasting more than 10 seconds. Endotracheal intubation seems to be the ideal method for establishing a secure airway by experienced providers, but emergency medical technicians (EMT) often lack training and practice. For the EMTs supraglottic devices might serve as alternatives.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Engineering 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,257,747
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#330
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,869
of 193,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 193,194 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.