| Title |
A comparative study between amiodarone and magnesium sulfate as antiarrhythmic agents for prophylaxis against atrial fibrillation following lobectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Anesthesia, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00540-012-1478-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamed A. Khalil, Ahmed E. Al-Agaty, Wael G. Ali, Mohsen S. Abdel Azeem |
| Abstract |
Atrial fibrillations are common after thoracic surgery. Amiodarone and magnesium sulfate have been used for the management of atrial fibrillation following cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. However, to our knowledge, comparisons of both drugs with each other and with a control group in relation to the prevention of AF following lung surgery have not been performed. Our primary aim in this study was to prospectively evaluate the prophylactic effects of magnesium sulfate and amiodarone used separately and compare them with a control group analyzed retrospectively during and following lobectomy surgeries. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iraq | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 71% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
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 26 November 2020.
All research outputs
#15,025,075
of 23,878,777 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#389
of 852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,990
of 172,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,878,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 852 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 172,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.