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 |
Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, comparative study in the ICU
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11384 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruediger R Noppens, Stephanie Geimer, Nicole Eisel, Matthias David, Tim Piepho |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Endotracheal intubation in the ICU is a challenging procedure and is frequently associated with life-threatening complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope on laryngeal view and intubation success compared with direct laryngoscopy. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective, comparative before-after study in an anesthetist-lead surgical ICU of a tertiary university hospital, predictors of potentially difficult tracheal intubation, number of intubation attempts, success rate and glottic view were evaluated during a 2-year study period (first year, Macintosh laryngoscopy (ML); second year, C-MAC®). RESULTS: A total of 274 critically ill patients requiring endotracheal intubation were included; 113 intubations using ML and 117 intubations using the C-MAC® were assessed. In patients with at least one predictor for difficult intubation, the C-MAC® resulted in more successful intubations on first attempt compared with ML (34/43, 79% vs. 21/38, 55%; P = 0.03). The visualization of the glottis with ML using Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grading was more frequently rated as difficult (20%, C&L grade 3 and 4) compared with the C-MAC® (7%, C&L grade 3 and 4) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Use of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope improved laryngeal imaging and improved the intubating success rate on the first attempt in patients with predictors for difficult intubation in the ICU setting. Video laryngoscopy seems to be a useful tool in the ICU where potentially difficult endotracheal intubations regularly occur. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 20% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 66% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#8,185,927
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,291
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,074
of 181,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#45
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 181,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 63% of its contemporaries.