You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Intravenous lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005622.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wasiak, Jason, Mahar, Patrick, McGuinness, Siobhan K, Spinks, Anneliese, Danilla, Stefan, Cleland, Heather |
| Abstract |
This is an update of the review on 'Lidocaine for pain relief in burn injured patients' first published in Issue 3, 2007. Pain is a major issue for patients suffering from many different types of wounds, in particular those with burn injuries. Prompt, aggressive use of opioid analgesics such as morphine has been suggested as critical to avert the cycle of pain and anxiety, but side effects are encountered. It is proposed that newer agents such as lidocaine could be effective in reducing pain and alleviating the escalating opioid dosage requirements in patients with burn injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,171,128
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,760
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,966
of 167,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 167,239 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 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.