↓ 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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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 22 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Psychology 11 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Environmental Science 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 32 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,549,651
of 15,757,766 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,025
of 11,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,342
of 217,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,757,766 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 11,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 217,974 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 250 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 57% of its contemporaries.