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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interventions for preventing reactions to snake antivenom
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 1999
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002153 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Issarang Nuchprayoon, Paul Garner |
| Abstract |
Antivenom is used to neutralise snake bite toxins in people showing evidence of envenomation. It is made from animal sera, and adverse effects, including life threatening anaphylaxis, are common. To assess the effects of drugs given routinely with snake antivenom to prevent adverse effects. Cochrane controlled trials register; contact with researchers in the field. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials testing routine adrenaline (epinephrine), antihistamines, or corticosteroids. The two authors applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. We sought additional data from trialists where required. One trial in Sri Lanka (n = 105) giving adrenaline with polyspecific antivenom showed fewer adverse reactions in the adrenaline group, and this effect was preserved when stratified for severity. One trial in Brazil (n = 101) using three types of Bothrops antivenom showed no benefit of antihistamine drugs. Routine prophylactic adrenaline for polyvalent antivenom known to have high adverse event rates seems sensible, based on this one trial. If clinicians believe local factors do not justify routine adrenaline, then they should test their belief in a randomised trial. Antihistamine appears to be of no obvious benefit in preventing acute reactions from antivenoms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 44% |
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 08 October 2023.
All research outputs
#5,264,158
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,177
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,390
of 36,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 36,438 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.