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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Neurodegeneration in Newborn Rats Following Propofol and Sevoflurane Anesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurotoxicity Research, May 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12640-009-9063-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Bercker, Bettina Bert, Petra Bittigau, Ursula Felderhoff-Müser, Christoph Bührer, Chrysanthy Ikonomidou, Mirjam Weise, Udo X. Kaisers, Thoralf Kerner |
| Abstract |
Propofol and sevoflurane are commonly used drugs in pediatric anesthesia. Exposure of newborn rats to a variety of anesthetics has been shown to induce apoptotic neurodegeneration in the developing brain. Newborn Wistar rats were treated with repeated intraperitoneal injections of propofol or sevoflurane inhalation and compared to controls. Brains were examined histopathologically using the De Olmos cupric silver staining. Additionally, a summation score of the density of apoptotic cells was calculated for every brain. Spatial memory learning was assessed by the Morris Water Maze (MWM) test and the hole board test, performed in 7 weeks old animals who underwent the same anesthetic procedure. Brains of propofol-treated animals showed a significant higher neurodegenerative summation score (24,345) when compared to controls (15,872) and to sevoflurane-treated animals (18,870). Treated animals also demonstrated persistent learning deficits in the hole board test, whereas the MWM test revealed no differences between both groups. Among other substances acting via GABAA agonism and/or NMDA antagonism propofol induced neurodegeneration in newborn rat brains whereas a sevoflurane based anesthesia did not. The significance of these results for clinical anesthesia has not been completely elucidated. Future studies have to focus on the detection of safe anesthetic strategies for the developing brain. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 38% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 August 2012.
All research outputs
#5,446,700
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Neurotoxicity Research
#267
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,670
of 111,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotoxicity Research
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 111,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.