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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inhalation Anesthesia Is Preferable for Recording Rat Cardiac Function Using an Electrocardiogram
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1248/bpb.b14-00012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manabu Murakami, Hidetoshi Niwa, Tetsuya Kushikata, Hiroyuki Watanabe, Kazuyoshi Hirota, Kyoichi Ono, Takayoshi Ohba |
| Abstract |
The effects of inhalation anesthesia (2% isoflurane, sevoflurane, or enflurane) and intraperitoneal anesthesia with pentobarbital (65 mg/kg) were compared in rats using an electrocardiogram (ECG) and determination of blood oxygen saturation (SPO2) levels. Following inhalation anesthesia, heart rate (HR) and SPO2 were acceptable while pentobarbital anesthesia decreased HR and SPO2 significantly. This indicates that inhalation anesthesia is more preferable than pentobarbital anesthesia when evaluating cardiovascular factors. Additionally, pentobarbital significantly increased HR variability (HRV), suggesting a regulatory effect of pentobarbital on the autonomic nervous system, and resulted in a decreased response of the baro-reflex system. Propranolol or atropine had limited effects on ECG recording following pentobarbital anesthesia. Taken together, these data suggest that inhalation anesthesia is suitable for conducting hemodynamic analyses in the rat. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,791
of 25,380,192 outputs
Outputs from Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin
#2,588
of 3,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,286
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin
#58
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,271 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.