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 |
Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2253-12-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sebastian G Russo, Stephan Cremer, Tamara Galli, Christoph Eich, Anselm Bräuer, Thomas A Crozier, Martin Bauer, Micha Strack |
| Abstract |
The i-gel™, LMA-Supreme (LMA-S) and Laryngeal Tube Suction-D (LTS-D) are single-use supraglottic airway devices with an inbuilt drainage channel. We compared them with regard to their position in situ as well as to clinical performance data during elective surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 69% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#13,133,731
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#384
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,770
of 166,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 166,600 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.