↓ Skip to main content

Unusual elevation in Entropy but not in PSI during general anesthesia: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Unusual elevation in Entropy but not in PSI during general anesthesia: a case report
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0486-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Young Sung Kim, Dongik Chung, Seok Kyeong Oh, Young Ju Won, Il Ok Lee

Abstract

EEG monitoring is useful for determining an adequate level of anesthesia. However it is sometimes interfered by various reasons. We describe a case in which we successfully confirmed the adequate depth of anesthesia by monitoring the patient state index (PSI), which was computed from the SedLine monitor data in Root (Masimo) during general anesthesia. Our case showed unusual elevations in entropy, but not in PSI. A 34-year-old woman was scheduled for emergency surgery for a left tibial open fracture and a right femoral closed fracture, which were sustained during a traffic accident. Forty-five minutes after intubation, the response entropy abruptly increased up to 100 and state entropy to 91. Despite the absence of other abnormal events, the entropy data led to two types of incorrect decisions. The first was owing to the effect of the EMG and the second was misleading during the surgeon's hammering. However, PSI from the SedLine monitor seemed to be less influenced by the same events. In this report, we suggest that the PSI, derived from new-generation SedLine (Root, Masimo) may be a useful parameter for clinically determining the level of sedation. The use of two monitoring devices with different EEG algorithms might be helpful for determining the anesthetic depth and making decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 34%
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 04 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,967,526
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#596
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,056
of 446,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 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 55% 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 446,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.