↓ Skip to main content

STOP-Bang and the effect on patient outcome and length of hospital stay when patients are not using continuous positive airway pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
STOP-Bang and the effect on patient outcome and length of hospital stay when patients are not using continuous positive airway pressure
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00540-014-1848-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika A. Proczko, Pieter S. Stepaniak, Marcel de Quelerij, Floor Haak van der Lely, J. Smulders, Lukasz Kaska, Mohammed A. Soliman Hamad

Abstract

In patients undergoing surgical interventions under general anesthesia, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) can cause serious perioperative cardiovascular or respiratory complications leading to fatal consequences, even sudden death. In this study we test the hypothesis that morbidly obese patients diagnosed by a polysomnography test and using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy have fewer and less severe perioperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than patients who have a medical history that meets at least three STOP-Bang criteria and are not using CPAP therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 11 15%
Other 9 12%
Unspecified 8 11%
Other 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 67%
Unspecified 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 5 7%

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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,796,809
of 13,073,426 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#191
of 562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,061
of 188,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,073,426 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 562 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 188,591 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.