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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
There remains a role for neuraxial anesthesia for hip fracture surgery in the post-REGAIN era
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1136/rapm-2022-104071 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander B Stone, Jashvant Poeran, Stavros G Memtsoudis |
| Abstract |
Two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials comparing neuraxial anesthesia with general anesthesia for patients undergoing surgical fixation of a hip fracture have sparked interest in the comparison of general and neuraxial anesthesia. These studies both reported non-superiority between general and neuraxial anesthesia in this patient cohort, yet they have limitations, like their sample size and use of composite outcomes. We worry that that if there is a perception among surgeons, nurses, patients and anesthesiologists that general and spinal anesthesia are equivalent (which is not what the authors of the studies conclude), it may become difficult to argue for the resources and training to provide neuraxial anesthesia to this patient population. In this daring discourse, we argue that despite the recent trials, there remain benefits of neuraxial anesthesia for patients who have suffered hip fractures and that abandoning offering neuraxial anesthesia to these patients would be an error. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 22 | 54% |
| Canada | 3 | 7% |
| Belgium | 2 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Morocco | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 59% |
| Scientists | 9 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 50% |
| Other | 1 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,458,338
of 24,483,002 outputs
Outputs from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#154
of 2,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,209
of 405,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#7
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,483,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 405,514 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.