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 |
Advances in anesthesia technology are improving patient care, but many challenges remain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-018-0504-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. John Doyle, Ashraf A. Dahaba, Yannick LeManach |
| Abstract |
Although significant advances in clinical monitoring technology and clinical practice development have taken place in the last several decades, in this editorial we argue that much more still needs to be done. We begin by identifying many of the improvements in perioperative technology that have become available in recent years; these include electroencephalographic depth of anesthesia monitoring, bedside ultrasonography, advanced neuromuscular transmission monitoring systems, and other developments. We then discuss some of the perioperative technical challenges that remain to be satisfactorily addressed, such as products that incorporate poor software design or offer a confusing user interface. Finally we suggest that the journal support initiatives to help remedy this problem by publishing reports on the evaluation of medical equipment as a means to restore the link between clinical research and clinical end-users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 15% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#471
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,664
of 330,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 330,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 54% of its contemporaries.