| Title |
Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010320.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda Nicholson, Andrew F Smith, Sharon R Lewis, Tim M Cook |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2)) is increasing in both developed and developing countries, leading to a rise in the numbers of obese patients requiring general anaesthesia. Obese patients are at increased risk of anaesthetic complications, and tracheal intubation can be more difficult. Flexible intubation scopes (FISs) are recommended as an alternative method of intubation in these patients. Intubation with an FIS is considered an advanced method, requiring training and experience; therefore it may be underused in clinical practice. Patient outcomes following intubation with these scopes compared with other devices have not been systematically reviewed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 46 | 24% |
| Unknown | 50 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 57 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,187,012
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,388
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,586
of 304,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#211
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 304,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.