↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complications

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2003
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
382 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
Preoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complications
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004423
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marian C Brady, Sue Kinn, Pauline Stuart, Valerie Ness

Abstract

Fasting before general anaesthesia aims to reduce the volume and acidity of stomach contents during surgery, thus reducing the risk of regurgitation/aspiration. Recent guidelines have recommended a shift in fasting policy from the standard 'nil by mouth from midnight' approach to more relaxed policies which permit a period of restricted fluid intake up to a few hours before surgery. The evidence underpinning these guidelines however, was scattered across a range of journals, in a variety of languages, used a variety of outcome measures and methodologies to evaluate fasting regimens that differed in duration and the type and volume of intake permitted during a restricted fasting period. Practice has been slow to change.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 246 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 19%
Student > Bachelor 40 16%
Other 32 12%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Other 97 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 174 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Unspecified 30 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 24 9%

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 04 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,601,121
of 13,183,153 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,295
of 10,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,808
of 129,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,183,153 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 129,500 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 91 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 71% of its contemporaries.