↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The use of Invos™ somatic oximetry to measure variations in placental tissue oxygenation in laboring healthy term parturients with epidural analgesia: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
The use of Invos™ somatic oximetry to measure variations in placental tissue oxygenation in laboring healthy term parturients with epidural analgesia: an observational study
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/mder.s150472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Loubert, Mélissa Ouellette, Valérie Zaphiratos, Issam Tanoubi

Abstract

Near-infrared spectroscopy provides a non-invasive continuous real-time monitoring of tissue oxygen saturation. As uterine contractions during labor may be associated with a transient uteroplacental hypoperfusion, this prospective, observational study investigates the ability of near-infrared spectroscopy to detect variation in uteroplacental oximetry during uterine contractions. Four Invos™ oximetry probes (Medtronic(®), Minneapolis, MN, USA) per subjects were applied on the placental surface (PLA), the abdomen (MYO), the forearm (ARM) and the leg (LEG), of twenty healthy laboring parturients with epidural analgesia. Measurements of mean tissue oxygen saturation and area under the curve (AUC) were made during 60 minutes. The primary outcome was the difference of the AUC measurements between the PLA probe and the MYO probe. The AUC values for the PLA and MYO probes were not different. The mean saturation values recorded by the PLA probe were not different from the other probes. The Invos monitor was unable to detect variations in uteroplacental saturation during labor in healthy parturients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 50%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 50%
Physics and Astronomy 1 13%
Psychology 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,578,661
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#168
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,476
of 331,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 331,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.