↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009574.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Schnabel, Sylvia U Reichl, Christine Meyer‐Frießem, Peter K Zahn, Esther Pogatzki‐Zahn

Abstract

According to current recommendations a multimodal approach is believed to be the gold standard for postoperative pain treatment in children. However, several surveys in the last few years demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is still a serious problem, mainly because opioids are avoided. One of the reasons for this is the fear of severe adverse events following opioid administration. Tramadol is a weak mu-opioid agonist and inhibits reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin (5HT). Because of a relatively wide therapeutic window and a ceiling effect with a lower risk for severe adverse events (for example respiratory depression) tramadol is a widely used opioid in children. However, the exact efficacy and occurrence of adverse events following tramadol (in comparison with placebo or other opioids) for postoperative pain treatment in children and adolescents are currently not clear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 247 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Researcher 20 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Other 14 6%
Other 49 20%
Unknown 84 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Psychology 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Unspecified 7 3%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 95 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,662,644
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,258
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,859
of 291,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#123
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 291,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 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 51% of its contemporaries.