| Title |
Review of the enhanced recovery pathway for children: perioperative anesthetic considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12630-017-1042-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica A. George, Rahul Koka, Tong J. Gan, Eric Jelin, Emily F. Boss, Val Strockbine, Deborah Hobson, Elizabeth C. Wick, Christopher L. Wu |
| Abstract |
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been used for two decades to improve perioperative recovery in adults. Nevertheless, little is known about their effectiveness in children. The purpose of this review was to consider pediatric ERAS pathways, review the literature concerned with their potential benefit, and compare them with adult ERAS pathways. A PubMed literature search was performed for articles that included the terms enhanced recovery and/or fast track in the pediatric perioperative period. Pediatric patients included those from the neonatal period through teenagers and/or youths. The literature search revealed a paucity of articles about pediatric ERAS. This lack of academic investigation is likely due in part to the delayed acceptance of ERAS in the pediatric surgical arena. Several pediatric studies examined individual components of adult-based ERAS pathways, but the overall study of a comprehensive multidisciplinary ERAS protocol in pediatric patients is lacking. Although adult ERAS pathways have been successful at reducing patient morbidity, the translation, creation, and utility of instituting pediatric ERAS pathways have yet to be realized. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 8% |
| Colombia | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,125,229
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#793
of 2,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,754
of 447,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#37
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 447,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.