↓ Skip to main content

As required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
As required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011404.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Erskine, Philip J Wiffen, Joy A Conlon

Abstract

Acute postoperative pain occurs as a result of tissue damage following surgery. Administering the appropriate analgesia to children is a complex process and it is unclear whether children's postoperative pain is more successfully treated by using 'as required' (when pain occurs) (termed 'pro re nata' or PRN) or (irrespective of pain at the time of administration).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 14 16%
Unspecified 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 47%
Unspecified 19 22%
Psychology 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#1,157,495
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,370
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,468
of 215,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 69% 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 215,861 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 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 58% of its contemporaries.