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 |
Bronchoscopy versus an endotracheal tube mounted camera for the peri-interventional visualization of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy - a prospective, randomized trial (VivaPDT)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1901-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jörn Grensemann, Lars Eichler, Sophie Kähler, Dominik Jarczak, Marcel Simon, Hans O. Pinnschmidt, Stefan Kluge |
| Abstract |
Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) in critically ill patients often involves bronchoscopic optical guidance. However, this procedure is not without disadvantages. Therefore, we aimed to study a recently introduced endotracheal tube-mounted camera (VivaSightTM-SL tube [VST]; ETView, Misgav, Israel) for guiding PDT. This was a randomized controlled trial involving 46 critically ill patients who received PDT using optical guidance with a VST or with bronchoscopy. The primary outcome measure was visualization of the tracheal structures (i.e., identification and monitoring of the thyroid, cricoid, and tracheal cartilage and the posterior wall) rated on 4-point Likert scales. Secondary measures were the quality of ventilation (before puncture and during the tracheostomy procedure rated on 4-point Likert scales) and blood gases sampled at standardized time points. The mean ratings for visualization (lower values better; values given for per-protocol analysis) were 5.4 (95% CI 4.5-6.3) for the VST group and 4.0 (95% CI 4.0-4.0) for the bronchoscopy group (p < 0.001). Mean ventilation ratings were 2.5 (95% CI 2.1-2.9) for VST and 5.0 (95% CI 4.4-5.7) for bronchoscopy (p < 0.001). Arterial carbon dioxide increased to 5.9 (95% CI 5.4-6.5) kPa in the VST group vs. 8.3 (95% CI 7.2-9.5) kPa in the bronchoscopy group (p < 0.001), and pH decreased to 7.40 (95% CI 7.36-7.43) in the VST group vs. 7.26 (95% CI 7.22-7.30) in the bronchoscopy group (p < 0.001), at the end of the intervention. Visualization of PDT with the VST is not noninferior to guidance by bronchoscopy. Ventilation is superior with less hypercarbia with the VST. Because visualization is not a prerequisite for PDT, patients requiring stable ventilation with normocarbia may benefit from PDT with the VST. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02861001 . Registered on 13 June 2016. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 3 | 13% |
| Colombia | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Guinea | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,608,709
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,266
of 6,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,496
of 449,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#68
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 449,223 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.