| Title |
Use, applicability and reliability of depth of hypnosis monitors in children - a survey among members of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-018-0503-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuen Man Cheung, Gail Scoones, Robert Jan Stolker, Frank Weber |
| Abstract |
To assess the thoughts of practicing anaesthesiologists about the use of depth of hypnosis monitors in children. Members of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology were invited to participate in an online survey about their thoughts regarding the use, applicability and reliability of hypnosis monitoring in children. The survey achieved a response rate of 30% (N = 168). A total of 138 completed surveys were included for further analysis. Sixty-eight respondents used hypnosis monitoring in children (Users) and 70 did not (Non-users). Sixty-five percent of the Users reported prevention of intra-operative awareness as their main reason to apply hypnosis monitoring. Among the Non-users, the most frequently given reason (43%) not to use hypnosis monitoring in children was the perceived lack or reliability of the devices in children. Hypnosis monitoring is used with a higher frequency during propofol anaesthesia than during inhalation anaesthesia. Hypnosis monitoring is furthermore used more frequently in children > 4 years than in younger children. An ideal hypnosis monitor should be reliable for all age groups and any (combination of) anaesthetic drug. We found no agreement in the interpretation of monitor index values and subsequent anaesthetic interventions following from it. Prevention of intraoperative awareness appears to be the most important reason to use hypnosis monitoring in children. The perceived lack of reliability of hypnosis monitoring in children is the most important reasons not to use it. No consensus currently exists on how to adjust anaesthesia according to hypnosis monitor index values in children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Peru | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,449,819
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#241
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,449
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.