↓ Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Dose selection of central or peripheral administration of sufentanil affect opioid induced cough?: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, April 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Dose selection of central or peripheral administration of sufentanil affect opioid induced cough?: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0502-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiabei He, Ling Zhu, Huichen Zhu, Xinyu Gu, Peiying Li, Yuting Yang, Liqun Yang

Abstract

Opioid-induced cough (OIC) is one of the most common complications of opioids during anesthesia induction. This study was designed to assess the incidence of OIC mediated by different intravenous route. A total of 102(ASA I-II) scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups: central vein group (group CV, n = 51) and peripheral vein group (group PV, n = 51). The incidence, onset time and severity of OIC were evaluated within 1 min just after sufentanil injection during induction. Meanwhile, heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were also recorded to assess the hemodynamic changes. The incidence of OIC was 10/51 (20.4%) in group CV and 16/51 (32%) in group PV, patients received central venous administration of sufentanil experienced less OIC compared with those injected by peripheral venous route (P < 0.05), as well as a significantly lower incidence of severe OIC (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, the onset of OIC and hemodynamic data were comparable between two groups (P > 0.05). Our study indicates that sufentanil administration by central venous route reduces the incidence and severity of OIC, but without significant changes in hemodynamic status. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR-IOR-15006075 . Registered 28 February 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 10 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 11 46%
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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,324,809
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#520
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,486
of 329,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 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 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 64% 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 329,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.