↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of cervical trauma collars: differences in immobilization, effect on jugular venous pressure and patient comfort

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of cervical trauma collars: differences in immobilization, effect on jugular venous pressure and patient comfort
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1757-7241-22-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sigurbergur Karason, Kristbjorn Reynisson, Kristinn Sigvaldason, Gisli H Sigurdsson

Abstract

Concern has been raised that cervical collars may increase intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. The purpose of this study was to compare four types of cervical collars regarding efficacy of immobilizing the neck, effect on jugular venous pressure (JVP), as a surrogate for possible effect on intracranial pressure, and patient comfort in healthy volunteers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 107 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 24%
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 23%
Engineering 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,271,507
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#425
of 1,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,381
of 243,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 243,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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.