↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of Airway and Respiratory Adverse Events With Ketamine Sedation in the Emergency Department: An Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis of 8,282 Children

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
224 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of Airway and Respiratory Adverse Events With Ketamine Sedation in the Emergency Department: An Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis of 8,282 Children
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, February 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.12.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven M. Green, Mark G. Roback, Baruch Krauss, Lance Brown, Ray G. McGlone, Dewesh Agrawal, Michele McKee, Markus Weiss, Raymond D. Pitetti, Mark A. Hostetler, Joe E. Wathen, Greg Treston, Barbara M. Garcia Pena, Andreas C. Gerber, Joseph D. Losek, Emergency Department Ketamine Meta-Analysis Study Group

Abstract

Although ketamine is one of the most commonly used sedatives to facilitate painful procedures for children in the emergency department (ED), existing studies have not been large enough to identify clinical factors that are predictive of uncommon airway and respiratory adverse events.

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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 20%
Other 18 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 11%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,131,032
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#628
of 6,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,118
of 186,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 186,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.