| Title |
Naloxone for shock
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004443 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benoit Boeuf, Véronique Poirier, France Gauvin, Anne‐Marie Guerguerian, Chantal Roy, Catherine Farrell, Jacques Lacroix |
| Abstract |
There is pre-clinical evidence, involving several animal species, suggesting that opioid peptides play a role in the physiopathology of shock (endotoxic, hypovolemic, cardiogenic, spinal, anaphylactic). Many case reports have suggested that naloxone (an opiate antagonist) might be an effective treatment for shock in humans, but others have not supported such a point of view. This controversy led us to undertake a meta-analysis of the available evidence on the efficacy of naloxone as a treatment measure of shock in humans. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Greece | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Kazakhstan | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 22% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 21 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,819,652
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,877
of 13,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,994
of 53,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 53,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.