| Title |
Topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor preparations for flexible fibre-optic nasal pharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005606.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sunkaraneni, Vishnu S, Jones, Stephen EM, Jones, Stephen Em |
| Abstract |
Nasal pharyngolaryngoscopy (NPL) is performed as an outpatient and inpatient procedure on a daily basis, for a variety of indications. It frequently causes some degree of discomfort to the patient. Various different topical agents, which are intended to reduce this discomfort, are in common use. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of the various agents. |
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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 37% |
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 20 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,061,613
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,792
of 12,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,104
of 109,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 109,866 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.