↓ Skip to main content

Total CroFab and Anavip Antivenom Vial Administration in US Rattlesnake Envenomations: 2019–2021

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Total CroFab and Anavip Antivenom Vial Administration in US Rattlesnake Envenomations: 2019–2021
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, April 2023
DOI 10.1007/s13181-023-00941-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicklaus Brandehoff, Alicia Dalton, Claire Daugherty, Richard C. Dart, Andrew A. Monte

Abstract

In 2018, Anavip became available for the treatment of rattlesnake envenomations in the USA. No comparisons between the treatment characteristics of patients have been made since Anavip and CroFab have both been widely available. The objective of this study was to compare the number of antivenom vials administered of CroFab and Anavip during the treatment of rattlesnake envenomations in the USA. This was a secondary analysis of rattlesnake envenomations utilizing the North American Snakebite Registry (NASBR) from 2019 through 2021. Frequencies and proportions were used to summarize demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. The primary outcome was total antivenom vials administered during treatment. Secondary outcomes included the number antivenom administration events, total treatment time, and hospital length of stay. Two hundred ninety-one rattlesnake envenomations were analyzed; most occurred in the Western USA (n = 279, 96 %). One hundred one patients (35%) received only CroFab, 110 (38%) received Anavip only, and 80 (27%) received both products. The median number of vials used was 10 for CroFab, 18 for Anavip, and 20 for both antivenoms. More than one antivenom administration was necessary in thirty-nine (39%) patients that received only CroFab and 76 (69%) patients that received Anavip only. The median total treatment time was 5.5 hours for CroFab, 6.5 for Anavip, and 15.5 hours when both antivenoms were administered. All antivenom groups had a median hospital length of stay of 2 days. Rattlesnake envenomated patients in the Western USA treated with CroFab had fewer antivenom vials and fewer antivenom administrations compared to patients treated with Anavip.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%
Unknown 1 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,034,144
of 24,256,961 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#60
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,951
of 389,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,256,961 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 389,712 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 94% 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 all of them