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 |
A simple and fast ultrasonographic method of detecting enteral feeding tube placement in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-017-0249-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wagner Luis Nedel, Mariana Nunes Ferreira Jost, João Wilney Franco Filho |
| Abstract |
Abdominal X-rays, the diagnostic method for enteral feeding tube (EFT) positioning, are a source of irradiation for the patients and carry a potential risk of adverse effects. Data related to ultrasound (US)-guided EFT placement are scarce. We evaluated 41 patients with 41 EFT insertions with guidewire in place that was maintained until US examination. US detected 38 patients with proper positioning and 3 with inadequate positioning, with a sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 84.9-99.8%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 19.7-100%). The assessment of EFT position through abdominal US is practical and safe, associated with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 18 | 28% |
| Colombia | 3 | 5% |
| Chile | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 36 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 54 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
| Scientists | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 17 January 2022.
All research outputs
#899,018
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#31
of 582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,228
of 327,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.