↓ Skip to main content

Naloxone for shock

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Naloxone for shock
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benoit Boeuf, Véronique Poirier, France Gauvin, Anne-Marie Guerguerian, Chantal Roy, Catherine Farrell, Jacques Lacroix

Abstract

There is pre-clinical evidence, involving several animal species, suggesting that opioid peptides play a role in the physiopathology of shock (endotoxic, hypovolemic, cardiogenic, spinal, anaphylactic). Many case reports have suggested that naloxone (an opiate antagonist) might be an effective treatment for shock in humans, but others have not supported such a point of view. This controversy led us to undertake a meta-analysis of the available evidence on the efficacy of naloxone as a treatment measure of shock in humans.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Kazakhstan 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 28%
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Unspecified 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 58%
Unspecified 5 14%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,035,159
of 12,471,096 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,927
of 8,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,109
of 191,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,471,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 191,744 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.