↓ Skip to main content

Intraosseous access can be taught to medical students using the four-step approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Intraosseous access can be taught to medical students using the four-step approach
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0882-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Afzali, Ask Daffy Kvisselgaard, Tobias Stenbjerg Lyngeraa, Sandra Viggers

Abstract

The intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative route for vascular access when peripheral intravascular catheterization cannot be obtained. In Denmark the IO access is reported as infrequently trained and used. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if medical students can obtain competencies in IO access when taught by a modified Walker and Peyton's four-step approach. Nineteen students attended a human cadaver course in emergency procedures. A lecture was followed by a workshop. Fifteen students were presented with a case where IO access was indicated and their performance was evaluated by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and rated using a weighted checklist. To evaluate the validity of the checklist, three raters rated performance and Cohen's kappa was performed to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR). To examine the strength of the overall IRR, Randolph's free-marginal multi rater kappa was used. A maximum score of 15 points was obtained by nine (60%) of the participants and two participants (13%) scored 13 points with all three raters. Only one participant failed more than one item on the checklist. The expert rater rated lower with a mean score of 14.2 versus the non-expert raters with mean 14.6 and 14.3. The overall IRR calculated with Randolph's free-marginal multi rater kappa was 0.71. The essentials of the IO access procedure can be taught to medical students using a modified version of the Walker and Peyton's four-step approach and the checklist used was found reliable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Other 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 19%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,472,092
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,104
of 3,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,872
of 310,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#20
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 310,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.