↓ Skip to main content

Difficult tracheal intubation in critically ill

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, August 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
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
Difficult tracheal intubation in critically ill
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0318-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Armin Ahmed, Afzal Azim

Abstract

Endotracheal intubation in critically ill is a high-risk procedure requiring significant expertise in airway handling as well as understanding of pathophysiology of the disease process. Critically ill patients are prone for hypotension and hypoxemia in the immediate post-intubation phase due to blunting of compensatory sympathetic response. Preoxygenation without NIV is frequently suboptimal, as alveolar flooding cause loss of alveolar capillary interface in many of these patients. All these factors, along with relative fluid deficit, neuromuscular fatigue and coexistent organ dysfunction lead to physiologically difficult airway. Airway in ICU can be classified as anatomically difficult, physiologically difficult and anatomically as well as physiologically difficult. Though rapid sequence intubation is the recommended method for securing airway in these patients, other methods like delayed sequence intubation awake intubation and double setup approach can be used in specific subgroups. Further research is needed in this field to set guidelines and fine tune airway management for patients with specific organ failure or dysfunction. Airway in ICU should be managed according to the physiological as well as the anatomical abnormalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 27 19%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 20 14%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 21 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Engineering 3 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 25 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 25 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,248,267
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#107
of 571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,254
of 336,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 336,942 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.