| Title |
Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001429.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona Lecky, Daniele Bryden, Rod Little, Nam Tong, Chris Moulton |
| Abstract |
Emergency intubation has been widely advocated as a life saving procedure in severe acute illness and injury associated with real or potential compromises to the patient's airway and ventilation. However, some initial data have suggested a lack of observed benefit. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Kazakhstan | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 318 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 11% |
| Other | 31 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 74 | 22% |
| Unknown | 83 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 171 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 8% |
| Psychology | 9 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Unknown | 90 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,236,093
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,304
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,829
of 92,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 92,972 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.