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 |
Optimal site for ultrasound-guided venous catheterisation in paediatric patients: an observational study to investigate predictors for catheterisation success and a randomised controlled study to determine the most successful site
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0733-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Takeshita, Yoshinobu Nakayama, Yasufumi Nakajima, Daniel I Sessler, Satoru Ogawa, Teiji Sawa, Toshiki Mizobe |
| Abstract |
IntroductionVenous catheterisation in paediatric patients can be technically challenging. We examined factors affecting catheterisation of invisible and impalpable peripheral veins in children and evaluated the best site for ultrasound-guided catheterisation.MethodsSystolic pressure, age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status were determined in 96 children weighing < 20 kg. Vein diameter and subcutaneous depth were measured with ultrasound. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the contribution of these factors to cannulation success with (n¿=¿65) or without (n¿=¿31) ultrasound guidance. Thereafter, we randomised 196 patients for venous catheter insertion in the dorsal veins of the hand, the cephalic vein in the forearm, or the great saphenous vein. Success rates and vein diameters were evaluated using Dunn tests; insertion time, using Kaplan¿Meier cumulative incidence analysis.ResultsIndependent predictors of catheterisation were ultrasound guidance (odds ratio (OR)¿=¿7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0 to 26.0, P¿=¿0.002), vein diameter (OR¿=¿1.5 per 0.1 mm increase in diameter, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0, P¿=¿0.007), and ASA physical status (OR¿=¿0.4 per status 1 increase, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.9, P¿=¿0.03). Cephalic veins were significantly larger (cephalic diameter 1.8 mm, P¿=¿0.001 versus saphenous 1.5 mm; P <0.001 versus dorsal 1.5 mm). Catheterisation success rates were significantly better at the cephalic vein than either the dorsal hand or saphenous vein (cephalic 95%, 95% CI: 89 to 100%, P <0.001 versus dorsal 69%, 95% CI: 56 to 82%; P¿=¿0.03 versus saphenous 75%, 95% CI: 64 to 86%).ConclusionsThe cephalic vein in the proximal forearm appears to be the most appropriate initial site for ultrasound-guided catheterisation in invisible and impalpable veins of paediatric patients.Trial registry numberUMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000010961. Registered on 14 June 2013. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 37% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 18% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,020,373
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,525
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,546
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#201
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 395,397 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 56% of its contemporaries.