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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Orogastric tube insertion using the new gastric tube guide: first experiences from a manikin study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-017-0343-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Alflen, Marc Kriege, Irene Schmidtmann, Rüdiger R. Noppens, Tim Piepho |
| Abstract |
Orogastric tube placement is a common procedure routinely used in clinical anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. Nevertheless high failure rates and severe complications have been reported. We conducted this study to evaluate if the usage of the new gastric tube guide would speed up the placement of orogastric tubes and ease the procedure. Thirty one professionals were given a hands-on-training in orogastric tube placement in a simulation manikin without and with the gastric tube guide. Afterwards they performed both methods in randomized order. We recorded the placement time, counted the required attempts and asked the participants to rate their experience with both methods. The median placement time using the gastric tube guide was 14 s compared to 25 s without the device. In addition all participants were able to place the orogastric tube when using the gastric tube guide compared to 26/31 (84%) without it. Furthermore 26/31 (84%) users preferred the gastric tube guide over the standard method. Our results show that using the gastric tube guide to place orogastric tubes in a manikin led to a significant shorter placement time and a higher overall success rate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,540,642
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#999
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,048
of 308,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#24
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 308,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.