↓ Skip to main content

Multiple sclerosis: basic knowledge and new insights in perioperative management

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Multiple sclerosis: basic knowledge and new insights in perioperative management
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00540-013-1697-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandros Makris, Alexandros Piperopoulos, Iosifina Karmaniolou

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating disease of the central nervous system affecting young adults that may lead to significant disability. The clinical course varies among the types of the disease as well as among individuals. Herein we provide a brief review of the recent data concerning the clinical presentation, diagnosis, causes, and pathogenesis of MS as well as medication used, followed by the anesthetic considerations of patients diagnosed with the disease. To accomplish this, we conducted a systematic PubMed literature search for articles, using the terms multiple sclerosis, anesthesia, general, regional, perioperative, and preoperative, and we then manually reviewed the references from each pertinent article. Because randomized controlled trials on the field are rare, most information is derived by case reports and case series. We concluded that the disease itself as well as the treatment modalities may have several implications in the conduct of anesthesia and perioperative management of MS patients. General and regional anesthetic techniques have been successfully used. With thorough preoperative evaluation and in depth knowledge of the disease and its complications, the MS patients can be managed safely.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 19%
Student > Master 11 11%
Other 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 41%
Neuroscience 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#380
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,803
of 200,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 200,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.