↓ Skip to main content

Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010225.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric A Bruder, Ian M Ball, Stacy Ridi, William Pickett, Corinne Hohl

Abstract

The use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 184 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 22%
Other 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 33 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#699,392
of 14,615,417 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,068
of 11,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,564
of 297,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,615,417 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 11,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 297,376 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 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.