↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2006
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
384 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, April 2006
DOI 10.1186/cc4887
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Delaney, Sean M Bagshaw, Marek Nalos

Abstract

Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Brazil 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 210 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 48 21%
Student > Postgraduate 43 19%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 53 23%
Unknown 13 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Neuroscience 2 <1%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 21 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#587,611
of 4,553,834 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#518
of 2,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,215
of 145,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#52
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,553,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 145,275 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 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 69% of its contemporaries.