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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A meta-analysis of analgesic and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine in burn patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Burns (03054179), March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.burns.2013.01.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Asmussen, Dirk M. Maybauer, John F. Fraser, Kristofer Jennings, Shane George, Marc O. Maybauer |
| Abstract |
Sedation for burn patients is provided by a variety of techniques determined usually by institutional preferences. The available pool of drugs has recently expanded to include dexmedetomidine (DEX), a α2-adrenergic receptor agonist with analgesic and sedative potential. Beneficial effects of DEX in burn patients have been described in many studies published over the last 5 years. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to determine the role of DEX for analgosedation of burn patients. We searched any article that matched the keywords "dexmedetomidine" and "burn", published before October 01, 2012. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the recommendation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM). Our search yielded eleven total citations, of which four studies (266 patients) met the inclusion criteria of DEX for analgosedation in burn patients. There are no meta-analyses published that met our inclusion criteria. Even though there were only a small number of clinical trials available, the meta-analysis shows evidence for deeper and better sedation as well as for prevention of hypertension when using DEX as an adjunct during burn procedures. No evidence was found for reduced pain scores in this setting. The authors recommend the development of a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial with an adequate number of patients to further elucidate the potentially beneficial effects of DEX for the management of burn patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 25% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 64% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
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
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Burns (03054179)
#581
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,268
of 207,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Burns (03054179)
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 207,743 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 18 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 72% of its contemporaries.