| Title |
Infraclavicular brachial plexus block for regional anaesthesia of the lower arm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005487.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ki Jinn Chin, Husni Alakkad, Sanjib D Adhikary, Mandeep Singh |
| Abstract |
Several approaches exist to produce local anaesthetic blockade of the brachial plexus. It is not clear which is the technique of choice for providing surgical anaesthesia of the lower arm, although infraclavicular blockade (ICB) has several purported advantages. We therefore performed a systematic review of ICB compared to the other brachial plexus blocks (BPBs). This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2013. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 3 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| India | 2 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Poland | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 125 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 41 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 31 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,508,357
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,250
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,466
of 201,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 201,718 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 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 50% of its contemporaries.