↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia for paediatric outpatient surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia for paediatric outpatient surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009015.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana C Ortiz, Álvaro N Atallah, Delcio Matos, Edina MK da Silva

Abstract

Ambulatory or outpatient anaesthesia is performed in patients who are discharged on the same day as their surgery. Perioperative complications such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative behavioural disturbances and cardiorespiratory complications should be minimized in ambulatory anaesthesia. The choice of anaesthetic agents and techniques can influence the occurrence of these complications and thus delay in discharge.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 106 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Unspecified 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Other 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 58%
Unspecified 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 10 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,135,170
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,558
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,791
of 187,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 187,520 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.