↓ Skip to main content

Use of propofol as an anesthetic and its efficacy on some hematological values of ornamental fish Carassius auratus

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Title
Use of propofol as an anesthetic and its efficacy on some hematological values of ornamental fish Carassius auratus
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hosna GholipourKanani, Samaneh Ahadizadeh

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the level of anesthesia attained in Carassius auratus using a propofol bath administration and using values of haematological profile of blood and examinations, to assess the effects of the fish exposure to that anaesthetic. Acute toxicity values of propofol for gold fish were found 96 h LC50 6.353 mg/L, 96 h LC1 2.966 mg/L and 96 h LC99 13.609 mg/L. Time to induce anesthesia in propofol experiment was significantly higher than Clove oil (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in recovery time between the experiments. No significant decrease was found in Total RBC, WBC, HCT, MCH, MCV and leukogram indices (p > 0.05). MCHC (%) level of propofol experiment (13.93 ± 1.36) showed significant (p < 0.05) decrease than Clove oil anesthesia (94.95 ± 24.50) and control (62.46 ± 21.90). Hb(g/dl) content (5.20 ± 0.73) showed decrease in propofol exposure compared with control (15.41 ± 4.76) and clove oil experiment (25.39 ± 5.73) (p < 0.05).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 31%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,103,651
of 11,877,834 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#747
of 1,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,769
of 132,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,877,834 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,710 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 132,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.