↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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 lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005622.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Wasiak, Patrick D Mahar, Siobhan K McGuinness, Anneliese Spinks, Stefan Danilla, Heather Cleland, Hannah B Tan

Abstract

This is an update of the review on "Lidocaine for pain relief in burn injured patients" first published in Issue 3, 2007, and first updated in 2012. Pain is a major issue for people with many different types of wounds, in particular those people with burn injuries. Prompt, aggressive use of opioid analgesics such as morphine has been suggested as critical to avert the cycle of pain and anxiety, but adverse effects are encountered. It has been proposed that newer agents such as lidocaine could be effective in reducing pain and alleviating the escalating opioid dosage requirements in people with burn injury.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 116 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 32 26%

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 08 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,290,485
of 17,397,008 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,654
of 11,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,006
of 237,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,397,008 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 11,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. 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 237,877 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.