↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The art of removing nasal foreign bodies

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
The art of removing nasal foreign bodies
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s150503
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tian-Tee Ng, Michael Nasserallah

Abstract

The removal of nasal foreign bodies (NFBs) can be a difficult task for the inexperienced physician, and the more unsuccessful attempts are made, the more difficult the extraction becomes. We have formulated this simple "four-step" approach to improve success, especially on the first try. A retrospective review of cases requiring NFB removal, seen by one registrar from 2012 to 2016 at Frankston Hospital, was performed. From 2012 to 2016, 93 patients were referred, of whom 65 were confirmed to have NFBs. In all, 20 patients were first seen by the registrar and had the NFB removed successfully. Another 28 patients were referred to the registrar only after one failed attempt by another medical personnel, and the remaining 17 patients were referred after two failed attempts. All patients had the NFB removed locally in the emergency department using the "four-step" approach, except four patients who had the NFB removed under general anesthesia in the operating theater. Three of the latter had two failed attempts and had refused further attempts, and the fourth patient had developed epistaxis after a failed removal by his general practitioner. When performed correctly, the "four-step" approach will result in the successful removal of NFBs. Ideally, the removal of NFBs should only be performed by an experienced medical personnel, and any failed first attempt removals must be subsequently managed only by an experienced medical personnel.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 24%
Unspecified 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 58%
Unspecified 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,000,263
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#62
of 224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,706
of 341,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 341,375 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them