↓ Skip to main content

Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, February 2011
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, February 2011
DOI 10.1136/emj.2010.103564
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Oxygen (O(2)) is widely recommended in international guidelines for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but there is uncertainty about its safety and benefits. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether inhaled O(2) in AMI improves pain or the risk of death. Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PASCAL were searched from start date to February 2010. Other sources included British Library ZETOC, Web of Science, ISI Proceedings, relevant conferences, expert contacts. Randomised controlled trials of inhaled O(2) versus air in patients with suspected or proven AMI of < 24 h onset were included. Two authors independently reviewed studies to confirm inclusion criteria met, and undertook data abstraction. Quality of studies and risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Main outcomes were death, pain, and complications. Measure of effect used was the RR. Three trials (n=387 patients) were included. Pooled RR of death on O(2) compared to air was 2.88 (95%CI 0.88 to 9.39) on ITT analysis and 3.03 (95%CI 0.93 to 9.83) in confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. Pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95%CI 0.78 to 1.20). Evidence for O(2) in AMI is sparse, of poor quality and pre-dates advances in reperfusion and trial methods. Evidence is suggestive of harm but lacks power and excess deaths in the O(2) group could be due to chance. More research is required.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 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 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 72 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Professor 7 9%
Other 24 30%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,466,951
of 31,970,964 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#1,637
of 4,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,582
of 150,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#12
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,970,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 150,850 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 73% of its contemporaries.