↓ Skip to main content

Inadequate anaesthesia in lethal injection for execution

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, April 2005
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
52 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
reddit
10 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Inadequate anaesthesia in lethal injection for execution
Published in
The Lancet, April 2005
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66377-5
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Anaesthesia during lethal injection is essential to minimise suffering and to maintain public acceptance of the practice. Lethal injection is usually done by sequential administration of thiopental, pancuronium, and potassium chloride. Protocol information from Texas and Virginia showed that executioners had no anaesthesia training, drugs were administered remotely with no monitoring for anaesthesia, data were not recorded and no peer-review was done. Toxicology reports from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina showed that post-mortem concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of 49 executed inmates (88%); 21 (43%) inmates had concentrations consistent with awareness. Methods of lethal injection anaesthesia are flawed and some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during execution.

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 4 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 51 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 %
United States 1 2%
Slovenia 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Professor 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Other 16 31%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 463. 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 January 2025.
All research outputs
#70,840
of 32,004,021 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#1,153
of 50,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57
of 97,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#2
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,004,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 50,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 97,258 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 99% of its contemporaries.