↓ Skip to main content

Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009574.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Schnabel, Sylvia U Reichl, Christine Meyer-Frießem, Peter K Zahn, Esther Pogatzki-Zahn

Abstract

According to current recommendations a multimodal approach is believed to be the gold standard for postoperative pain treatment in children. However, several surveys in the last few years demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is still a serious problem, mainly because opioids are avoided. One of the reasons for this is the fear of severe adverse events following opioid administration. Tramadol is a weak mu-opioid agonist and inhibits reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin (5HT). Because of a relatively wide therapeutic window and a ceiling effect with a lower risk for severe adverse events (for example respiratory depression) tramadol is a widely used opioid in children. However, the exact efficacy and occurrence of adverse events following tramadol (in comparison with placebo or other opioids) for postoperative pain treatment in children and adolescents are currently not clear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 24%
Student > Master 18 16%
Unspecified 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Other 10 9%
Other 31 27%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 57%
Unspecified 25 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#1,382,699
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,746
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,433
of 219,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 65% 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 219,864 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 51% of its contemporaries.