↓ 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 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 48%

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
#15,255,201
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#653
of 1,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,397
of 388,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#22
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 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 1,478 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 388,592 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 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.