↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Management of difficult airways

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Clinical review: Management of difficult airways
Published in
Critical Care, December 2006
DOI 10.1186/cc5112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Langeron, Julien Amour, Benoît Vivien, Frédéric Aubrun

Abstract

Difficulties or failure in airway management are still important factors in morbidity and mortality related to anesthesia and intensive care. A patent and secure airway is essential to manage anesthetized or critically ill patients. Oxygenation maintenance during tracheal intubation is the cornerstone of difficult airway management and is always emphasized in guidelines. The occurrence of respiratory adverse events has decreased in claims for injuries due to inadequate airway management mainly at induction of anesthesia. Nevertheless, claim reports emphasize that airway emergencies, tracheal extubation and/or recovery of anesthesia phases are still associated with death or brain damage, indicating that additional educational support and management strategies to improve patient safety are required. The present brief review analyses specific problems of airway management related to difficult tracheal intubation and to difficult mask ventilation prediction. The review will focus on basic airway management including preoxygenation, and on some oxygenation and tracheal intubation techniques that may be performed to solve a difficult airway.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 115 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 17%
Student > Postgraduate 17 14%
Researcher 14 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 39 32%
Unknown 12 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Psychology 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 19 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 December 2011.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,467
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,574
of 167,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 167,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.