↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of the transillumination-assisted technique versus midline approach technique in novices: a prospective randomized controlled trial about the Bonfils intubation fiberscope

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
A comparison of the transillumination-assisted technique versus midline approach technique in novices: a prospective randomized controlled trial about the Bonfils intubation fiberscope
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0322-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Wang, Lan Yuan, Guoqiang Fu, Wei Tang, Guijie Yu, Feng Guo, Jiangang Song

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy for novices to conduct intubation with the Bonfils intubation fiberscope (BIF) using the transillumination-assisted or midline approach technique in patients with normal airways. In this prospective randomized control study, 10 trainees were assigned to the transillumination-assisted technique group (T group) or the midline approach technique group (R group). Each trainee was required to conduct intubation in 50 patients. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were success rate (%), number of attempts, and complications. Among the cases of successful intubation, the intubation time was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The overall success rate of intubation was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The intubation success rates at the first, second, and third attempts as well as the average intubation times were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05), but in patients receiving successful intubation at the second attempt, the intubation time was longer in the T group (P = 0.0006). The incidences of dry throat, sore throat, and hoarseness were higher in the T group (all P < 0.05). For patients with a normal airway, the transillumination-assisted technique was unlikely to increase the success rate of intubation with the BIF compared with the midline approach technique, but led to more complications. ChiCTR-INR-16009967 , retrospectively registered on November 22, 2016.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 47%
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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,406,219
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,185
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,766
of 310,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#35
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 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 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 310,771 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.