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 |
Use of ultrasound guidance to improve the safety of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: a literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0942-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariam Alansari, Hadil Alotair, Zohair Al Aseri, Mohammed A Elhoseny |
| Abstract |
Patients in ICUs frequently require tracheostomy for long-term ventilator support, and the percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) method is preferred over surgical tracheostomy. The use of ultrasound (US) imaging to guide ICU procedures and interventions has recently emerged as a simple and noninvasive tool. The current evidence regarding the applications of US in PDT is encouraging; however, the exact role of US-guided dilatational tracheostomy (US-PDT) remains poorly defined. In this review, we describe the best available evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of US-PDT and briefly delineate the general principles of US image generation for the airway and of US-PDT procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 Kingdom | 8 | 14% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Argentina | 2 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 41 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Czechia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 61% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,130,183
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#922
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,820
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#54
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 395,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.