↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac Arrest in the Operating Room

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
67 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Cardiac Arrest in the Operating Room
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, March 2018
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000002596
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cardiac arrest in the operating room and procedural areas has a different spectrum of causes (ie, hypovolemia, gas embolism, and hyperkalemia), and rapid and appropriate evaluation and management of these causes require modification of traditional cardiac arrest algorithms. There is a small but growing body of literature describing the incidence, causes, treatments, and outcomes of circulatory crisis and perioperative cardiac arrest. These events are almost always witnessed, frequently known, and involve rescuer providers with knowledge of the patient and their procedure. In this setting, there can be formulation of a differential diagnosis and a directed intervention that treats the likely underlying cause(s) of the crisis while concurrently managing the crisis itself. Management of cardiac arrest of the perioperative patient is predicated on expert opinion, physiologic rationale, and an understanding of the context in which these events occur. Resuscitation algorithms should consider the evaluation and management of these causes of crisis in the perioperative setting.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 41 19%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Student > Master 13 6%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 61 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 67 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 March 2025.
All research outputs
#1,047,681
of 34,518,599 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#167
of 11,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,860
of 374,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#3
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,599 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 374,196 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.