↓ Skip to main content

GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, May 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, May 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ping Huang, Renlong Zhou, Zhixing Lu, Yannan Hang, Shanjuan Wang, Zhenling Huang

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 17 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 18 55%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#15,700,122
of 23,330,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#691
of 1,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,041
of 390,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#23
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,330,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,533 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 390,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.